Amazing! Betts is worried about "Bike Trails". Are you aware that there are families that can barely afford FOOD? There are families that can barely put gas in their car to get to work? There are families that can barely afford their mortgage or rent?

Do you realize that many have lost their jobs right before christmas? Many won't have a Christmas. Many are getting "Pink Slips" daily?

And all i've heard you comment on is the lack of "bike trails". If these people don't vote NO for another tax they are what? If these families vote NO and have the safety of their family as a Priority then what's wrong with that?
Where is all of this TAX money going to come from? You and the few thousand people who still have jobs? The projected money comes from EVERYONE. The Everyone we plan to TAX are UNEMPLOYED! Right? Over 7%! We didn't get 100 million dollars a year when the economy was GREAT and we had 4% unemployment. How are we going to get to the 777 Million? Maybe you can answer. The Mayor can't.
Bike Trails! WOW!:doh:

iron, people struggle everyday. It's a harsh but everyday reality. The rest of the world can't but on the breaks for the sake of struggling families.

I hope these families find themselves in a more fortunate situation. I really do. But the city still has to move on.

Besides, using the current economy to shoot down this proposal is a bad strategy, especially when no one knows what the economy is going to be like in 2011 or 2012. The city could be pulling in MORE than $100 million.

Why downtown? Because great cities have great downtown parks and great downtowns. Central Park, the Boston Public Garden and the Boston Common, Millenium Park and Grant Parks in Chicago are as well known as almost any tourist attraction in these cities. Why? Because people love them, they're a refreshing green space in an urban landscape, and because they are community gathering spaces. When we first moved to OKC one of our first thoughts was, "where is the park?", followed by "what an ugly downtown" it's definitely better than it was, but has a long way to go.

OKC large land size can definitely be misleading. Probably better to compare us with other cities that have similar populations and square miles. Or at least parks/acreage per capita.

While we don't have anywhere near 1700 parks (how many acres?), we aren't devoid of parks either. City of Oklahoma City | City Parks (http://okc.gov/Parks/parks_maps/list.html) lists about 113 parks in the OKC City limits comprising "more than 6,900 land acres". So adding a 70 acre Park is adding 1% to the City's acreage total. Not a huge increase.

I looked at the park site and took something different from it. The fact that it states that the ground maintenance division (and it's rather generic name) takes care of other areas makes me believe that the 6,900 includes all city land, not just park land.

For the acreage question, the top 10 parks they list (Central Park is actually fifth largest in size) equal more than 11,000 acres, spread across all five Burroughs. Like OKC, they include all recreational public sites, it seems, and only city parks, but the main thing to take from it is that it's spread out. Now, it's a much larger population, but it's half the space. They have it right, public sites can't really be centralized to one district, they have to be spread out and they all have to be supported.

There's nothing against the idea of a big local park, but if you're going to try to sell it to people, you better be sure they can't look at their own public spaces and see them losing city support. If you do, they see it as them paying for rich people's toys. When I hear complaints about the park, that's part of what I'm hearing.


While the downtown 70 acre park is certainly the (park) focus of MAPS 3, parks are being taken care of most recently in the 2007 General Obligation bond issue.

I still think it begs the question of why? Why should the one park on this big-money ballot be located where the smallest (and most likely wealthiest) portion of city residents live? If I'm in part of the city that doesn't have much in public spaces, you can damn well bet that I'm annoyed at the prospect.


Why downtown? Because great cities have great downtown parks and great downtowns. Central Park, the Boston Public Garden and the Boston Common, Millenium Park and Grant Parks in Chicago are as well known as almost any tourist attraction in these cities. Why? Because people love them, they're a refreshing green space in an urban landscape, and because they are community gathering spaces. When we first moved to OKC one of our first thoughts was, "where is the park?", followed by "what an ugly downtown" it's definitely better than it was, but has a long way to go.

Quick question, were you the one that lived downtown? I can't keep all my posters straight.

Great cities do have great parks. Great cities have all their largest parks elsewhere. You know why? Because great cities know that great parks are for the citizens who support them, not for tourists who are touring downtowns. They know that people shouldn't have to consider taking transport, public or private, if they want to enjoy a city park. It's why Central Park, Boston Common, and Grant parks aren't the biggest parks and why those cities have made conscious efforts to make sure there are public spaces available well beyond the downtown urban centers. If you want to go to a park in NYC, Boston or Chicago, you're can go to a park and you can go to one close to where you live. You don't have to ponder the question of whether public transport is available because you don't have to go that far.

Now, OKC is more spread out than those cities, but the same lesson should be taken, they don't rely on major centralized parks. Compared to other parks the cities have, they have downright small downtown parks. They have their parks all spread out.

If anyone who is being asked to vote for MAPS can look and see local public spaces going unsupported so downtown residents can have a bit of "green space" in their backyard, what incentive do they have to vote for it? I'm not asking because I'm against it, I'm asking because some of the arguments for it have been really weak and "trust us" doesn't hold weight as an argument for anything, much less giving a lot of money to the government.

I live downtown but lived near OCU when I first moved here and have lived all over the city. My interest in a downtown park has existed since we moved here, I having lived in Chicago and my husband in NYC and Boston. Perhaps that has created a downtown park preference, but we've actually done more than just visit. We know how the locals feel about their city parks and want to replicate that feeling. We're going to have to agree to disagree because I sense a fundamental difference in perspective.

We need to get the corpse of milton friedman and agusto pinochet and prop it up in Betts living room

I looked at the park site and took something different from it. The fact that it states that the ground maintenance division (and it's rather generic name) takes care of other areas makes me believe that the 6,900 includes all city land, not just park land. ...

That could very well be. But we do have 113 parks spread out all over the City. I understand your point, that if other resources for existing neighborhood parks are shifted to the MAPS 3 park (and that could very well happen, since City departments are taking budget cuts, staffing levels are lower than they were in 1994, etc), that can be a concern.


...They have it right, public sites can't really be centralized to one district, they have to be spread out and they all have to be supported. ... They have their parks all spread out.

Again, we are doing the same thing. This is 1 main park (with a string of connecting smaller park spaces extending to the River and beyond) being added to the 113 existing parks that are located all over the City. Agree with the support part though.


...I'm not asking because I'm against it, I'm asking because some of the arguments for it have been really weak and "trust us" doesn't hold weight as an argument for anything, much less giving a lot of money to the government.

I agree with the last part for sure. One of the best arguments for the Park is the replacement of the often described "blighted" area that exists from the relocated I-40 and the downtown area. This area is obviously in that condition now and has been for quite awhile, but visitors rarely saw it as they exited towards downtown. When I-40 relocates, they are going to be driving right thru it and it doesn't make that good of a 1st impression. Having a large green space there would be a huge improvement and step in the right direction towards fixing that. IMO

I still think it begs the question of why? Why should the one park on this big-money ballot be located where the smallest (and most likely wealthiest) portion of city residents live? If I'm in part of the city that doesn't have much in public spaces, you can damn well bet that I'm annoyed at the prospect.

Really? Really? The proposed area for the new park is where the wealthiest portion of city residents live? Our city is in much worse shape than i thought.

Really? Really? The proposed area for the new park is where the wealthiest portion of city residents live? Our city is in much worse shape than i thought.

There may be something to what he is saying, think he may be talking about the not so cheap residential that is going up/recently opened the past couple of years. The Mayor even joked he couldn't afford to live downtown.

I live downtown but lived near OCU when I first moved here and have lived all over the city. My interest in a downtown park has existed since we moved here, I having lived in Chicago and my husband in NYC and Boston. Perhaps that has created a downtown park preference, but we've actually done more than just visit. We know how the locals feel about their city parks and want to replicate that feeling. We're going to have to agree to disagree because I sense a fundamental difference in perspective.

I've talked to people in the city who don't have a well supported local park, the last thing they want to do is spend their hard-earned money for a downtown park which they'll never go to. So I know how locals feel about being asked to pony up money for a park that they may never use. But the main point is that all of those cities have invested more elsewhere, which isn't what's going on with this ballot.

And while you find it easy to assign an argument to me, throw up your hands and go home, I think it's an honest point for debate. Why should a struggling family want to pay for a park in the millionaire's backyard for a part of the city they never go to? Why should they care if some random person showed up from elsewhere and thought the city needed a park downtown? "Because" isn't exactly a convincing argument.


That could very well be. But we do have 113 parks spread out all over the City. I understand your point, that if other resources for existing neighborhood parks are shifted to the MAPS 3 park (and that could very well happen, since City departments are taking budget cuts, staffing levels are lower than they were in 1994, etc), that can be a concern.

I'll have to go through and take a look at the site. They have a map showing all the parks, but it's late now and I can't really go through them all now. What I can see is that the downtown area is pocked with parks, but there are major swaths of the city that are unaccounted for. It's either because there aren't parks there (and it's a large area for there to be none) or because the site hasn't updated to include it. Either way, Downtown has several listed, so it's hard to reason why they would need what would be among the largest of the parks in the city if other large portions have none.

And the comments about parks closing or being unsupported comes from comments I've heard expressed by other citizens, so it stands to reason that it's a real legitimate concern.


Again, we are doing the same thing. This is 1 main park (with a string of connecting smaller park spaces extending to the River and beyond) being added to the 113 existing parks that are located all over the City. Agree with the support part though.

City of Oklahoma City | Parks Maps (http://www.okc.gov/Parks/parks_maps/index.html)

Take a look at the layout of parks there. NE side has a few small ones clustered together, but look how much of the area isn't even accounted for?

Now, part of that is rural area, sure, and you can't expect them to put a lot into parks there, but you can compare that and other areas with the downtown area and you see an entirely different story of "need." Most of MAPS money is going to Downtown. Most people don't live downtown and don't go there often, and this park is centered around an area that has a healthy number of parks.


I agree with the last part for sure. One of the best arguments for the Park is the replacement of the often described "blighted" area that exists from the relocated I-40 and the downtown area. This area is obviously in that condition now and has been for quite awhile, but visitors rarely saw it as they exited towards downtown. When I-40 relocates, they are going to be driving right thru it and it doesn't make that good of a 1st impression. Having a large green space there would be a huge improvement and step in the right direction towards fixing that. IMO

I agree, but at the same time I think if you're going to expect nearly the entire population to pay for a large park in an area that has a healthy number, you can't ignore the lack of parks elsewhere. More or less, with the ballot, the only thing a person outside of the downtown area might be able to expect to receive from the ballot is, maybe, a senior aquatic center. That's a lot to ask people who are already hurting in a tough economic time.

There may be something to what he is saying, think he may be talking about the not so cheap residential that is going up/recently opened the past couple of years. The Mayor even joked he couldn't afford to live downtown.

That is what I was referring to. The downtown area is getting a lot of high-dollar residential in addition to the bulk of the proposed money for public works.

I've talked to people in the city who don't have a well supported local park, the last thing they want to do is spend their hard-earned money for a downtown park which they'll never go to. So I know how locals feel about being asked to pony up money for a park that they may never use. But the main point is that all of those cities have invested more elsewhere, which isn't what's going on with this ballot.

And while you find it easy to assign an argument to me, throw up your hands and go home, I think it's an honest point for debate. Why should a struggling family want to pay for a park in the millionaire's backyard for a part of the city they never go to? Why should they care if some random person showed up from elsewhere and thought the city needed a park downtown? "Because" isn't exactly a convincing argument.


This isn't just a "park", it's a true urban, living, festive park. Not like Will Rogers Park. Not like Earlywine Park, or some other neighborhood corner doozie. If people never "go there", then it is their problem for not getting their ass out to enjoy their city.

I've already stated my case about struggling families. The tax WILL NOT go up, and even if the tax goes down, just how in the hell is one penny on the dollar going to help families? Huh? It'll get them an extra coke a day, if that. So don't exploit struggling families to back your cause.

My family struggled for a while when I was growing up, but they loved being able to go some place for fun and not have to pay admission... just to get out of the house.

Just in case MAPS fails, and I emphasize just in case, don't bother coming on this board bitching about not having enough stuff to do in OKC.

Chance23,

I think we are on the "same page", so please don't mistake my posts as arguing against yours. That isn't the intent at all.

I certainly agree with the allocation of resources concern and if they can't maintain what they have now, how are they going to take care of the new any better?

Not sure if you noticed it but in one of my posts mentioned that other parks are supposedly been taken care of with other ballots. Specifically the 2007 General Obligation bond that passed. Supposedly is a key word because those projects are done over several years too and there was an audit a couple of years ago that showed projects from 3 separate bond issues (some going back 16 or 18 years at the time of the article) had yet to even be started! Never did see a follow-up article on it so they may still have gone undone. When I wrote the City Manager about it, the reply I got was "the City had other priorities" (MAPS). Seems something from the 2007 bond could fall through just as easily if the City has other priorities (MAPS 3) for the next 10 or so years...

Regardless of opinion, and clearly there is more than one, MAPS is about more than a park. I happen to think the streetcar is the most important of the projects. I happen to think it's the gestalt of many projects that is the key to MAPS: there's something for many different people.

As I've said before, when the first MAPS was proposed, I wasn't that impressed with many of the proposed projects. Having grown up with major league baseball, the thought of a minor league stadium didn't really appeal to me. I thought the canal was a feeble attempt to copy San Antonio. I'm not a library person, and I wasn't that interested in a downtown library. I was interested in major league basketball, but thought we were definitely building a Field of Dreams, and were pretty much dreaming. I can't remember what precisely was in Bricktown pre-MAPS but it wasn't much.

Similarly to this proposal, MAPS took a part of town that was almost unutilized, and turned it into a place where people congregate. I'm there a lot, because I can walk to the movies and walk to dinner when I want, and it's full of people. On a Saturday night, you see young people going to clubs, families going out to dinner, going bowling, going to the movies, people riding in horse drawn carriages and riding on the canal. It's vibrant and feels like a destination. Pre-MAPS, we had no destinations like that, for locals or visitors.

When I drive the Core to Shore area, I can imagine hopping on the streetcar and riding to the park. On a beautiful afternoon day, how nice would it be for people to have the opportunity to walk through the park, perhaps have lunch at Union Station or stroll through a museum or art gallery there (don't know precisely what's planned, but there will almost assuredly be something like that) and stop by a local food or art festival? As time goes on, the opportunity to walk across the SkyDance bridge and continue on to the river will present itself. Housing will ultimately be built there. There are plans for a school and the river will become a real destination. Obviously that's beyond MAPS, but just as MAPS has stimulated Automobile Alley, Film Row, Midtown and the Devon streetscaping indirectly, the same possibility is very likely for the area between Reno and the river.

What I have trouble understanding, is the disinterest in continuing to develop our downtown. Do you go to NYC to go to the suburbs? Boston? Chicago? Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, Miami? What gives those cities cachet? It's a welcoming, vibrant, multi-facteted downtown. Why do people move to those cities over Oklahoma City? Because they love living in cities with so many options for entertainment and leisure time activities. I cannot remember anyone saying, "I can hardly wait to move to _________, or "I can hardly wait to visit _________. They have the most fabulous suburbs."

A rising tide lifts all boats.

...What I have trouble understanding, is the disinterest in continuing to develop our downtown. Do you go to NYC to go to the suburbs? Boston? Chicago? Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, Miami? What gives those cities cachet? It's a welcoming, vibrant, multi-facteted downtown. Why do people move to those cities over Oklahoma City? Because they love living in cities with so many options for entertainment and leisure time activities. I cannot remember anyone saying, "I can hardly wait to move to _________, or "I can hardly wait to visit _________. They have the most fabulous suburbs."

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that any of your post doesn't sound nice and am not against any of it.

You brought up the above about great cities and downtowns again. I don't understand it at all. I have never lived or visited a City where my main emphasis was it's downtown. It is what that City has to do in general and not where the activity/attraction was specifically located. For instance, I don't really care where Disney World or Six Flags is located (in downtown, some other part of town or in the burbs, etc.) My concern on the location of things I want to visit is their proximity to each other (convenience of getting around) and having my hotel relatively near. I have never lived in some of the cities you mentioned but have visited many of them and the whole attraction of a "great park" eludes me.

Although I have visited the Dallas metroplex many times, each time I am reminded how good we have it here. Suppose some may ask why I have visited so often, it's getting out of town and having something different to do (at least on the surface). I hope we never become a Dallas or some of the other cities you mentioned. It would be very difficult to get the positives of that without the negatives that come along with it. There doesn't ever seem to be a time during daylight that there isn't heavy traffic. Here, our rush hour traffic basically lasts an hour and thats it. Avoid the 8am and 5pm times and you are home free. If I wanted to live in that type of setting I would move there.

Again, I am not against making things better. I suppose I am in the 1/3 the Mayor spoke of that doesn't care where the improvements are made as long as they are made in the best location for the item. As opposed to the 1/3 that think everything should be downtown and the 1/3 that think the wealth should be shared city wide. So I can understand those in the last 1/3 not being thrilled about having to pay their tax $$$ for something they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as benefiting them.

He is a real world example. We just drove from Atlanta to Norman this past weekend. We left Atlanta just after lunch on Friday so half way for us was Memphis, TN. We recently saw a program on the Travel Channel called Man vs. Food and my youngest son wanted to eat at a place featured on the show called Rendezvous, which is located in downtown Memphis.

Our first choice was to stay in the suburbs where the hotels are cheaper, but not knowing which parts of Memphis were nice and which were not we decided to pay a little extra and stay downtown. We have a small dog so we also had to find a hotel that allowed pets. We ended up staying at the Residence Inn downtown. The restaurant we went there for turned out to be only 1 block from the hotel so it was easy walking distance. After dinner we walked to Beale Street, about 5 blocks.

In the morning I walked the dog to a dog park 1 block from the hotel for his morning constitution. Since we were going to be on the road for 7 hours that day I decided to take him for a long walk around downtown. While walking down the trolley line lined with retail, condos, hotels, and apartments I met a man from Boston and walked with him for several blocks. He said that he meets up with a group of friends every year in some new city. After reading about Memphis’ street car system they decided to make Memphis their destination for this year (BTW – I advised him on OKC for next year).

So what does this all mean – well for one thing, Downtown Memphis had at least 4 visitors that paid extra to stay downtown because of the hotel and attractions and a group of other businessmen from all over America that they otherwise wouldn’t of had.

I was very impressed with downtown Memphis and could easily speed a week there with my camera (sorry didn’t get any pictures on this trip). The one drawback is how many homeless people approached us for money. You couldn’t walk 20 steps without someone asking for a handout, except when I had the dog. It appears homeless people are afraid of dogs because as I walked down the street with him the bums would cross the street to the other side.

Here is a link with photos of the Memphis system
Tennessee Streetcar Systems by John Smatlak (http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/memphis.htm)

I can tell you first hand that every building along the trolley system was either occupied or under renovation. Every lot there wasn't a building had one under construction on it (either a new hotel or condos).

Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that any of your post doesn't sound nice and am not against any of it.

You brought up the above about great cities and downtowns again. I don't understand it at all. I have never lived or visited a City where my main emphasis was it's downtown. It is what that City has to do in general and not where the activity/attraction was specifically located. For instance, I don't really care where Disney World or Six Flags is located (in downtown, some other part of town or in the burbs, etc.) My concern on the location of things I want to visit is their proximity to each other (convenience of getting around) and having my hotel relatively near. I have never lived in some of the cities you mentioned but have visited many of them and the whole attraction of a "great park" eludes me.

Yes, I actually think that's one of the fundamental differences between the voters who just aren't that interested in some of these projects, rather than those who don't want it to pass for reasons unrelated to the proposals. It really depends on your focus, and what you want for your city, more than a lack of concern for what we will become.

But, actually what I LEAST want for my city is for it to become Dallas (sorry, progressiveboy), and I see us heading that way....roads and availability of land making it easy to live out in the suburbs, downtown and the closer in neighborhoods being only a small part of our identity, and not a destination for many, or a desirable place to live.

But, if you look at what our attractions are, there is definitely a focus forming downtown. We will have the Native American Cultural Center, we do have Bricktown for restaurants and clubs (although there certainly could be more), the Ford Center, the Ballpark, the canal, our Art Museum, the Bombing Memorial, and we do have a convention center and our nicest hotels downtown, even if it's not as spiffy as many. We have our Myriad Gardens and Botanical tube. We have our river for the new national crew events we're getting. The adventure district, with the zoo, Remington Park, etc, is the only other real collection of destinations that appeal to both locals and visitors, and it actually could be fairly easily linked to our downtown by rail.

We may simply have different reasons we go to cities. I spend virtually all of my time downtown in the above cities I've mentioned, going shopping, to museums, to sporting events, dining out. I happen to love city parks, and for me, going to Boston, Chicago or New York is not complete without a walk through Central Park, the Boston Public Garden (my favorite) or Millenium Park. Just as you said, I really appreciate the ability to traverse the region without a car, which is the reason I think our new streetcar has so much potential to grow our downtown and make it user friendly for locals and visitors.

It's also probably why I live downtown, and why other people cannot imagine doing so. I moved here from Denver, and I lived downtown. I didn't even have a car. I walked and rode mass transit to get everywhere, and I took advantage of everything the downtown had to offer. I also see Oklahoma City as a city on the cusp, with a chance to be, not a Boston, but with hopes of being a mini Portland, a Kansas City: a city that is thriving, evolving, scratching to pull itself up to a new level. That, to me, takes effort and vision, and that's what I see with MAPS.

He is a real world example. We just drove from Atlanta to Norman this past weekend. We left Atlanta just after lunch on Friday so half way for us was Memphis, TN. In the morning I walked the dog to a dog park 1 block from the hotel for his morning constitution. Since we were going to be on the road for 7 hours that day I decided to take him for a long walk around downtown. While walking down the trolley line lined with retail, condos, hotels, and apartments I met a man from Boston and walked with him for several blocks. He said that he meets up with a group of friends every year in some new city. After reading about Memphis’ street car system they decided to make Memphis their destination for this year.

Here is a link with photos of the Memphis system
Tennessee Streetcar Systems by John Smatlak (http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/memphis.htm)

I can tell you first hand that every building along the trolley system was either occupied or under renovation. Every lot there wasn't a building had one under construction on it (either a new hotel or condos).

And, if one does a little research, this is precisely what happens. Mass transit in a downtown does promote development. Thanks for the interesting example, Kerry.

I've already stated my case about struggling families. The tax WILL NOT go up, and even if the tax goes down,
Yea...who cares about struggling families. They are already paying the TAX so they should just keep paying it and shut up. It's chump change...PER FAMILY ANYWAY...and it's only for 8 years!...

So don't exploit struggling families to back your cause.
This was my favorite... That's funny Pulse as you RIDE WORKING FAMILIES TO THE BANK!!!! Who's getting exploited! Struggling families are WHO paid for your precious MAPS1 and MAPS2 and MAPS2.1 or whatever.... You might want to remember that...

Just in case MAPS fails, and I emphasize just in case, don't bother coming on this board bitching about not having enough stuff to do in OKC.
Don't worry...Not many "working families" will lose any sleep over white water rapids, or bike trails, or a convention center..or the "CENTRAL" park. They'd like to go to a park perhaps, but they don't want to drive 15-20 minutes to get to a decent one.

Come back when MAPS3 is about improving the quality of life around the entire city! Not just in downtown. And don't waste your time coming back with the whining about "annexation". No one rational is saying we need a park at Cimmaron Road or Harrah-Newalla...get real..

Ok, I've read everything I can about MAPS3. I've read the proposal, I've read all the threads here, I've read the articles on Doug's blog, and I've visited the links and watched the videos everyone else has posted.

For the life of me, I cannot see any reason to give city leaders, of any city, 700 million dollars to spend in any way that takes their fancy. There's absolutely no guarantee or oversight in this. If it passes, there's nothing stopping them from turning around and blowing the whole wad on personal projects.

That's the other thing. I see very little in MAPS3 that is going to benefit the city as a whole. I don't for one minute buy all this crap about a 3 or 4 mile "transit" system drawing big business here. It's just a toy for the rich people who live Downtown to play with. Barely anyone uses the current transit systems, especially downtown. I know, I use the buses. I'm willing to bet that none of you people who live in the areas that the Streetcar will be serving are ever on the buses down there.

There's a park I'll never visit. There's a whitewater kayaking facility that I'll never use(complete waste of money). A convention center we don't need and new trails/sidewalks that apparently cost over half a million dollars per mile to create.

The rest of Oklahoma City needs far more work than the Downtown area. Parts of this city look like a bomb hit it. Other parts are barely safe enough to walk through in the daytime, let alone at night. The city can't even keep the homeless at bay in Kerr Park and you want to build them a freaking campground.

This is a very rough time for many Oklahoma City residents. Very Rough. Rough enough that asking them to give up "only" $10 a month is asking them to give up 2 or 3 meals for the family every month. That $120 a year is a car payment, or an insurance payment, or a huge chunk of rent that they CANNOT afford. Not to fund a playground or some toys for the people who live in luxury.

Frankly, it seems to me that many of you here, on this forum, have little to no concept of the reality of living in this city or what life outside of your bubble of Downtown Fantasyland is really like for normal human beings.

Hopefully you'll learn from the reality check you're going to get on Dec 8th. I've spoken to almost everyone who lives in my neighborhood. Those that know about MAPS3 assured me they're voting no. Those that didn't know about it were more than grateful to hear about it and had basically the same reaction.

A convention center we don't need


don't know what you are reading but this could not be further from the truth ..

Barely anyone uses the current transit systems, especially downtown. I know, I use the buses. I'm willing to bet that none of you people who live in the areas that the Streetcar will be serving are ever on the buses down there.

Of course not many people use the buses down there. Schedules and routes are confusing. Thats the beauty of the STREETCAR. It is on rails, you can physically see where it goes. It also will be more on time and run more often. Want to go see an event at the Civic Center and then have dinner in bricktown? Park somewhere near the rail, get on the STREETCAR towards Civic Center and after event get back on STREETCAR to Bricktown, have dinner and go home. THere are many reasons why this isnt happening with our current buses. Plus, deveopment along the STREETCAR rails will increase, guaranteed. Its been proven before in other cities. And increased development brings more money into the city which then helps everyone.



Rough enough that asking them to give up "only" $10 a month is asking them to give up 2 or 3 meals for the family every week.

No its not. 3 meals per week= 12 meals per month. $10/12 meals=$.83. If some of these families could find a meal that cheap then let me know where.

Of course not many people use the buses down there. Schedules and routes are confusing. Thats the beauty of the STREETCAR. It is on rails, you can physically see where it goes. It also will be more on time and run more often. Want to go see an event at the Civic Center and then have dinner in bricktown? Park somewhere near the rail, get on the STREETCAR towards Civic Center and after event get back on STREETCAR to Bricktown, have dinner and go home. THere are many reasons why this isnt happening with our current buses. Plus, deveopment along the STREETCAR rails will increase, guaranteed. Its been proven before in other cities. And increased development brings more money into the city which then helps everyone..


The bus schedules and routes are confusing? Confusing to who? I've never had a problem with the schedule, except for the goofy hours, which there's no guarantee the streetcar won't follow. And the routes couldn't be simpler. Have you ever been to a city with a real transit system? My god, you people want OKC to be like a "real" city and you think the current bus system is confusing? lol

It also looks like most of you who are glorifying this streetcar are making LOTS of assumtions about where it will run, when it will run and how far it will run. Will it go from the Civic Center to the heart of Bricktown? Show me proof. Will it run after 10PM? show me proof, the current system doesn't. Will there be cheap parking available anywhere near one of the stops? Show me proof.

Shoot, while I'm asking for proof, show me some that ensures the streetcar system will even be built if MAPS3 passes.




No its not. 3 meals per week= 12 meals per month. $10/12 meals=$.83. If some of these families could find a meal that cheap then let me know where.

Excuse me. Per Month. I'll edit my original post.

This isn't just a "park", it's a true urban, living, festive park. Not like Will Rogers Park. Not like Earlywine Park, or some other neighborhood corner doozie. If people never "go there", then it is their problem for not getting their ass out to enjoy their city.

It is a park. You can try to dress it up anyway you want, it's a park exactly where most parks in the city are already located. I'm not against a downtown urban area at all, but most of the arguments, aside from Larry's point about it being used to replace blighted areas, are extremely weak. The Pro-MAPS crowd has been just as overzealous about it as the anti-MAPS crowd.

As for not getting out, again, what makes a downtown park better than a neighborhood park? The fact that it's surrounded by big buildings and takes a gallon of gas to commute to?


I've already stated my case about struggling families. The tax WILL NOT go up, and even if the tax goes down, just how in the hell is one penny on the dollar going to help families? Huh? It'll get them an extra coke a day, if that. So don't exploit struggling families to back your cause.

Why not? The city wants everyone to pay for improvements to a place where a very small percentage live. That's the pro-MAPS crowd exploiting it for the cause. They're going to have to pay for it, are they not allowed an opinion on the matter? Are only those who support the measure allowed to hold any opinion on it?

The reason is simple economics, can a person who lives in SE OKC expect to benefit from their cost? Sales taxes historically affect lower income families (who have to spend the larger portion of their income every day) more. Can they see a direct benefit from it? If so, what? A park downtown that they might be able to spend their money to drive out too?

Or is it the same maybe, could be, might result of the tide lifting all boats? That it will have enough of a positive effect to the tax base that it will improve things city wide? There are a lot of things we keep hearing about that the city can't do and with funds being limited, is it a better investment?

Individually, taxes aren't much. Together, they add up. Add in all of the things that the county can't do as well as other places and you can damn well bet that people have a right to question what "urban space" would really give them, what they could get the majority of the year.


My family struggled for a while when I was growing up, but they loved being able to go some place for fun and not have to pay admission... just to get out of the house.

Which is why having parks all over the city is more important than having another one downtown. A downtown park is fine, but if you have to drive to it, guess what? You're paying to go.

That's why I looked at the parks site and looked at where the city parks were located. Most are in that same area, and those who live further away have far less. So why are all these areas shunned? And why are pro-MAPS people so afraid of the questions?

If I'm going to spend money on anything, I'm going to weigh the benefits and the costs. If I buy a TV, I look at what I can afford, what I have space for, and what benefit I feel I'll get from it. Don't ask people not to do that.


Chance23,

I think we are on the "same page", so please don't mistake my posts as arguing against yours. That isn't the intent at all.

I certainly agree with the allocation of resources concern and if they can't maintain what they have now, how are they going to take care of the new any better?

Not sure if you noticed it but in one of my posts mentioned that other parks are supposedly been taken care of with other ballots. Specifically the 2007 General Obligation bond that passed. Supposedly is a key word because those projects are done over several years too and there was an audit a couple of years ago that showed projects from 3 separate bond issues (some going back 16 or 18 years at the time of the article) had yet to even be started! Never did see a follow-up article on it so they may still have gone undone. When I wrote the City Manager about it, the reply I got was "the City had other priorities" (MAPS). Seems something from the 2007 bond could fall through just as easily if the City has other priorities (MAPS 3) for the next 10 or so years...

No mistake made, I fully understand what points you're making and thank you for such. My main goal is to actually hear real justification other than "we need to support this by giving carte blanch to the city leaders." I think both sides have been extremely overzealous of defending their particular points, to the point where it's almost all rhetoric.

It is my belief that all those in power and with an agenda need to be questioned and treated as such. The more hostile they get to being questioned, the more hostile we should be toward them. When they ask for a lot of money for a set of project, it is our duty as citizens to question those projects. Question what it will mean for the actual citizens (read, not any potential tourists that may or may not suddenly be swayed into visiting because of a 40 acre stretch downtown). I think the pro-MAPS crowd has been rather vitriolic as a whole about that happening, and that's more harmful than the police and fire going against it because of manpower issues. It makes MAPS look more like playtoys for the city elite rather than things designed for everyone.

Every project on it has some appeal and legitimate reason for being there, but it is our responsibility to not be complete cheerleaders and to try to keep them honest. People don't seem to like others asking the hard questions. I'm not against it, I'm unknown at this point, but I believe that, regardless of where you stand, it's the responsibility of any intelligent citizen to question. We shouldn't give money for a project just because they want it, it needs to be measured and examined.


Regardless of opinion, and clearly there is more than one, MAPS is about more than a park. I happen to think the streetcar is the most important of the projects. I happen to think it's the gestalt of many projects that is the key to MAPS: there's something for many different people.

I do too, but they're asking for the money for every measure, so every measure should be scrutinized and judged. We shouldn't blindly accept what they say because we like something, or even most things, on it.


What I have trouble understanding, is the disinterest in continuing to develop our downtown. Do you go to NYC to go to the suburbs? Boston? Chicago? Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, Miami? What gives those cities cachet? It's a welcoming, vibrant, multi-facteted downtown. Why do people move to those cities over Oklahoma City? Because they love living in cities with so many options for entertainment and leisure time activities. I cannot remember anyone saying, "I can hardly wait to move to _________, or "I can hardly wait to visit _________. They have the most fabulous suburbs."

What I don't understand is why are the biggest cheerleaders pretending that those who aren't such cheerleaders are suddenly against all development. Why can't people look beyond downtown without being villainized as anti-improvement? If a rising tide lifts all boats, shouldn't development across the city do the same for downtown? Most people don't live there, so why should people be happy and willing to add another tax on top of any tax that's going to be asked for for city and county services that will focus on developing just a small portion of town.

Oklahoma County has several different economic spheres. There's the state as a whole, the county as a whole, the city as a whole, and all the different areas of the city that are affected by their own economy. There's an economy of the Village. There's an economy of Nichols Hills, there's a Deep Deuce Economy, there's a southside economy. People are worried about the local economy of their own areas, not just downtown. MAPS has brought in a lot of money, but is there a list for what it means for people outside of downtown? It's given people more places they can go spend their money on, which is fine, but people aren't going to look just at that, they're going to look to see what, if anything, has it done for their neighborhood, their side of the city. I don't find that to be an unreasonable question to ask.

Chance23 - I sugggest you vote NO.

Actually, people who have low income and/or are seniors can get a rebate on the MAPS sales tax, so those least likely to have the money to contribute don't have to. I believe there's a tax credit for everyone receiving welfare as well. So, we don't have to worry about taking food out of their mouths. We may be giving them jobs in construction and the service industry with MAPS construction and support, but we're not stealing food.

Chance, what are your suggestions for MAPS development in other parts of the city? Did you go to any of the MAPS meetings that have been occurring over the last several years? Did you participate in the online survey? Have you written the mayor and your city councilmen with your suggestions?

I understand there are differing points of view about how a city should develop. I can accept that. But, where are those points of view? All I've seen are people discounting what has been planned, rather than coming up with concrete alternatives. If you're so pro-development, I'm just curious what kind of development you want to see the city plan and provide. I'm curious as to what you've done to get that point of view out to people who actually have asked for citizen input.

Actually, people who have low income and/or are seniors can get a rebate on the MAPS sales tax, so those least likely to have the money to contribute don't have to. I believe there's a tax credit for everyone receiving welfare as well. So, we don't have to worry about taking food out of their mouths. We may be giving them jobs in construction and the service industry with MAPS construction and support, but we're not stealing food.

Do you have any source for the rebate on MAPS 3? That's the first I've heard of it and I can't find any record of it in the brief search I did.


Chance, what are your suggestions for MAPS development in other parts of the city? Did you go to any of the MAPS meetings that have been occurring over the last several years? Did you participate in the online survey? Have you written the mayor and your city councilmen with your suggestions?

I have participated and expressed opinions, didn't go to any of the meetings but I did provide input in other ways. But from what it seems, more and more, these projects were more or less decided on on their own.


I understand there are differing points of view about how a city should develop. I can accept that. But, where are those points of view? All I've seen are people discounting what has been planned, rather than coming up with concrete alternatives. If you're so pro-development, I'm just curious what kind of development you want to see the city plan and provide. I'm curious as to what you've done to get that point of view out to people who actually have asked for citizen input.

There are plenty of good ideas, and ones I approve of. But downtown isn't the be-all-end-all of development. If you want a city to grow, you have invest in the whole city. I'm not suggesting that MAPS is bad or good, like I stated clearly before. I'm only asking questions, and you seem to be reinforcing the point that supporters don't like that. Why are people so afraid that someone asking a question about a measure will derail it? Why must supporters be complete cheerleaders? What's so dangerous about people questioning claims, other than that it makes people come up with actual justification for them? Why so afraid of actually providing answers? You're quick to pretend someone else is arguing a point you assigned to them, a paper tiger.

I'm merely asking about the projects that the entire city is being asked to pay for. It's not that hard of a concept, anyone who is able to critically think should be willing to step outside their bubble and try to look at what it means for the whole. Saying "because" and being a cheerleader isn't going to convince people who are on the fence, it's just going to make it look more and more like you have no real leg to stand on but to try to take money from them to improve your neck of the woods.

For example, why is it that more surveyors wanted general park improvements than a downtown park by a more than 3-1 margin, but the park that's being funded is the downtown one? Why does the state fair park get 6 times the funding of sidewalks, when sidewalks were voted for by a margin of about 5-1 over the fairgrounds? The hub and a few mass transit stops make up the only infrastructure, which was the second largest vote getter.

MikeOKC, vote NO, I promise if you do and it goes down in flames, you will have another chance to vote on a better plan.

Urban Pioneer has an excellent exposition regarding the transit system, and why the plan is to start with a streetcar on the mass transit threat, that I would suggest you read. I think many of us want to see much better mass transit in Oklahoma City, but we have to have a realistic understanding of what is feasible, what the costs are, what a logical time frame is, and how monies can be obtained that don't necessarily have to come from sales taxes.

I'm not a big fan of the state fair plans, because I don't go to the state fair. But, I accept that with the MAPS concept, not everything in the proposal excites every voter. As far as sidewalks go, people keep forgetting about the 12/07 bond issue which passed and which provides money for miles and miles of new sidewalks. MAPS will too, so sidewalks have actually been addressed. That December bond issue, which also will provide a great deal of money for road improvement throughout the metro, seems to have been missed by almost everyone, as people keep bringing up sidewalks and roads in their anti-MAPS arguments.

Is my saying I want a downtown park any different than you saying you don't? It's a personal opinion. That's what a forum is: a place where people can discuss their differing opinions. There's almost nothing being said here that's truth completely free of interpretation, and there are almost always multiple sides to any argument. I happen to see development of the core of a city as important, especially in one with a core that has been as neglected for years as ours has. Other people think differently, clearly. Some people consider cities like Boston ideal, others like big sprawling cities like Dallas. There's no right or wrong here.

You know what continually amazes me is when people claim that other parts of the city are being neglected in favor of downtown. The truth is, downtown got to its current condition after decades of the city catering to outlying parts of the city. Instead of the outer realms of OKC asking for equal funding they need to understand that MAPS is equal funding. The downtown core has been neglected for 40+ years.

When the city was building Will Rogers park, Lincoln Park, Earlywine Park, where was a downtown park?

When the city was laying water lines and streets all over the prairie, where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the city was widening Memorial where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the City was making improvements to Lake Hefner where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the city was building public golf courses all over the place, where was the equal funding for downtown?

When new libraries were being built all over the outer reaches of OKC where was the funding for a downtown library?

MAPS is the equal funding you claim you want so bad.

Urban Pioneer has an excellent exposition regarding the transit system, and why the plan is to start with a streetcar on the mass transit threat, that I would suggest you read. I think many of us want to see much better mass transit in Oklahoma City, but we have to have a realistic understanding of what is feasible, what the costs are, what a logical time frame is, and how monies can be obtained that don't necessarily have to come from sales taxes.

I never spoke against the mass-transit system, so this statement is irrelevant.


I'm not a big fan of the state fair plans, because I don't go to the state fair. But, I accept that with the MAPS concept, not everything in the proposal excites every voter. As far as sidewalks go, people keep forgetting about the 12/07 bond issue which passed and which provides money for miles and miles of new sidewalks. MAPS will too, so sidewalks have actually been addressed. That December bond issue, which also will provide a great deal of money for road improvement throughout the metro, seems to have been missed by almost everyone, as people keep bringing up sidewalks and roads in their anti-MAPS arguments.

Because people see that nothing is being done, but the city is jumping into something huge that's just for downtown. They can give them lip-service, but progress has stalled. What are the odds that MAPS projects won't face the same slowdown if it passes?


Is my saying I want a downtown park any different than you saying you don't? It's a personal opinion. That's what a forum is: a place where people can discuss their differing opinions. There's almost nothing being said here that's truth completely free of interpretation, and there are almost always multiple sides to any argument. I happen to see development of the core of a city as important, especially in one with a core that has been as neglected for years as ours has. Other people think differently, clearly. Some people consider cities like Boston ideal, others like big sprawling cities like Dallas. There's no right or wrong here.

I get that you don't really want to actually debate anything, and would rather cheer lead. That's fine, but if that's the case don't make other people's arguments for them. There's no point in you even responding if it's not to things that have actually been said. You're not actually answering any questions, even ones that should be easy to answer if they are true (like when you said there were MAPS rebates for low income families. That's simply a matter of providing an actual source). It's not all just differing opinions, it's asking questions and actually participating in critical thought.

I never said a downtown park is a bad thing (in fact, if you'll actually read the post you'll see that much), I questioned whether or not the value truly is what people are claiming and whether it's more valuable to have a large park there than parks in other areas of the city that don't have parks. The facts I've stated were that, in all major cities, large parks were all located elsewhere and that the highest concentration of parks is already close to the core of the city, while citizens on the outskirts (who are being asked to pay for it)

Second, I didn't say development for downtown was a bad thing. I'm asking what a person who doesn't live or work there in this city has to gain by it. That's not expressing an opinion, it's asking a question. It's a large city, everyone is paying for it

You know what continually amazes me is when people claim that other parts of the city are being neglected in favor of downtown. The truth is, downtown got to its current condition after decades of the city catering to outlying parts of the city. Instead of the outer realms of OKC asking for equal funding they need to understand that MAPS is equal funding. The downtown core has been neglected for 40+ years.

When the city was building Will Rogers park, Lincoln Park, Earlywine Park, where was a downtown park?

When the city was laying water lines and streets all over the prairie, where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the city was widening Memorial where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the City was making improvements to Lake Hefner where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the city was building public golf courses all over the place, where was the equal funding for downtown?

When new libraries were being built all over the outer reaches of OKC where was the funding for a downtown library?

MAPS is the equal funding you claim you want so bad.

A few qualms with that argument.

1: Without numbers, you can't really say it's equal. The fact that these projects were funded in the past, and now downtown is doesn't mean anything. Equal would be if each region of the city got the same maps funding MAPS is giving to downtown. Say there are five regions, NE, NW, SE, SW and the central core. Make them a startign squad of basketball players. You give one player $40 million and the other players $10 million each, and then say that they're all being paid equally. They're not. Without numbers, that argument isn't really valuable. We need to know how much money each of the regions has gotten over the same period to determine if it's equitable.

2: People weren't really living in downtown, but now that there are some people living there, a lot of the funding is being funneled directly to it and everyone is being asked to pay. What portion of the pie of funding drives has been put toward downtown development compared to NE side development? That gives a better picture.

There may be something to what he is saying, think he may be talking about the not so cheap residential that is going up/recently opened the past couple of years. The Mayor even joked he couldn't afford to live downtown.

I agree that some of the new downtown area housing has a very high cost per square foot but for over all cost it isn't anywhere near the elite status of quite a few other areas. The original post was implying that the new park would mainly benefit the wealthiest when that obviously isn't true. I am in a low income bracket and don't live anywhere near the park but it's amenities would certainly entice me to go there often. Having your own neighborhood park is certainly a priority but there is no way to have it close to the other attractions of the dowtown area.

MikeOKC, vote NO, I promise if you do and it goes down in flames, you will have another chance to vote on a better plan.

Seriously doubts this happens. If MAPS is voted down I think it will be a long time before you see anything else brought to the voters.

Seriously doubts this happens. If MAPS is voted down I think it will be a long time before you see anything else brought to the voters.

I've never understood this line of thinking. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that, if this ballot fails, the city leaders would throw up their hands and surrender? I think they've shown a commitment to trying to develop the city, so I don't see why would suddenly give up if it failed, especially since most of these people are politicians and businessmen, fields where failure is always present and just a step toward further success.

And if that is the case, isn't that just a bad spot to be in in general, if leaders aren't willing to amend their measures to try to get more approval?

Chance23,

Excellent point.

MikeOKC, vote NO, I promise if you do and it goes down in flames, you will have another chance to vote on a better plan.

You can promise? And, what is the "better plan"? Each of us is an individual and wants to see different things for our city. Why should the next plan necessarily be better? Maybe they'll include the things I don't care about and leave out the ones I do. Where's the guarantee there will even be a next plan, or that it will be put together in the next five years? It's easy to make promises on a message board, but I don't see any data showing anyone here really can guarantee anyone of anything. We can predict, we can state what we think, but there's nothing certain.

I believe the opposite. I think that if MAPS doesn't pass, the best thing we'll see is a few of the proposals stuck into bond issues here and there, and that eventually some of them will get done. But, I also see it ruining the whole MAPS concept. Why should any of the city leaders have any faith that a "new" MAPS would suddenly have the cachet that the original 3 did if this one fails? I don't think they will. I think we'll be stuck hoping our businessmen, the people many of the "no" voters seem to distrust the most, will do everything for us. We might get lucky, but I don't see any of them building a streetcar or a park, or putting in bike trails. Just my opinion.

Don't worry...Not many "working families" will lose any sleep over white water rapids, or bike trails, or a convention center..or the "CENTRAL" park. They'd like to go to a park perhaps, but they don't want to drive 15-20 minutes to get to a decent one.

Come back when MAPS3 is about improving the quality of life around the entire city! Not just in downtown. And don't waste your time coming back with the whining about "annexation". No one rational is saying we need a park at Cimmaron Road or Harrah-Newalla...get real..


Am I mistaken or are the bike paths and Senior Acquatics apart of the entire city and not just downtown? The Maps 3 is geared toward growing downtown up and making it enjoyable plus profitable to the city. Future Maps projects will go to various locations in the city.

You and JBrown84. I'm confused by the individual points each of you is making with the back and forth between the two of you when referencing quotes (such as was made by Larry Thompson) and/or me or comments relating thereto.

Larry vaguely referred to "some posters" saying that if MAPS 3 fails, the city will be set back ten years. No one said that except David Thompson. Many expressed that momentum would slow or stop, but no one here tried to say that progress would be reversed.


Your college educated friends are desperately needing a park, walking trails and Senior Aquatic center huh?:LolLolLol


It's clear from this statement that you just. don't. get. it.

It's not just about the specific projects but the development and improvements that only happen with the investment that is MAPS. Without the original MAPS, we would not have the NBA. We would not have an upscale bowling lounge in Bricktown. We would not have a new OKC Museum of Art facility that brings us art from the Louvre and the British Museum. We would not have an official Olympic training venue. We would not have a vegan culinary school. We would not have an 850' skyscraper under construction. We would not have multiple options for downtown living. Thousands of people at Chesapeake and Devon and Sandridge would not have jobs.


Why has this one been decided to be downtown? There are a lot of populated areas of the city that could use it. That alone isn't enough reason.

OKC already has 4 large parks, one in each quadrant of the city. The central part of the city does not have one. I would have been in favor of upgrades to those four parks as well as part of MAPS, but the fact that that was left out doesn't keep me from supporting the central park and MAPS 3 as a whole. There's no reason to think that adding this park will hurt the others. It will probably have a foundation dedicated to its upkeep, much like the Myriad Gardens.


If you ripped out the canal, demolished the Bricktown Ballpark and the Ford Center, paved over the Myriad Gardens, turned the OKC Zoo into a junkyard, and burned Remington Park to the ground, do you think people would think this city is still as nice a place to be? Would you say, "oh, unless you drive a canal boat, play professional basketball or baseball, or are a zookeeper or jockey, you aren't affected by any of this"?

:congrats:


This was my favorite... That's funny Pulse as you RIDE WORKING FAMILIES TO THE BANK!!!! Who's getting exploited! Struggling families are WHO paid for your precious MAPS1 and MAPS2 and MAPS2.1 or whatever.... You might want to remember that...

Aren't you late to a tea party protest somewhere?

OKC already has 4 large parks, one in each quadrant of the city. The central part of the city does not have one. I would have been in favor of upgrades to those four parks as well as part of MAPS, but the fact that that was left out doesn't keep me from supporting the central park and MAPS 3 as a whole. There's no reason to think that adding this park will hurt the others. It will probably have a foundation dedicated to its upkeep, much like the Myriad Gardens.

What you can see in the parks website is that there are large portions of the city that have none, particularly in the southwest and southeast, while the core of the city has a high concentration of parks, which tapers out more as you leave the core and get into the more heavily resided parts of the city, then fades out completely as you get to the outskirts. From what I see, the downtown core is fairly well represented by parks, according to the city. I'm just not seeing the huge lack there.

And I never argued that adding this will hurt the others, but progress on a lot of the others have been stalled, and you can bet this one wouldn't be. How's a citizen who lives near those parks and doesn't necessarily want to have to drive downtown for one to take it?


But, I also see it ruining the whole MAPS concept. Why should any of the city leaders have any faith that a "new" MAPS would suddenly have the cachet that the original 3 did if this one fails? I don't think they will. I think we'll be stuck hoping our businessmen, the people many of the "no" voters seem to distrust the most, will do everything for us. We might get lucky, but I don't see any of them building a streetcar or a park, or putting in bike trails. Just my opinion.

Then what the blue hell kind of leaders would they be to begin with? What good is any of it? You think, unless we give total and complete obedience to city leaders that we should expect them to do nothing of value? When has there ever been a successful anything built up solely and entirely on success, where one failure has derailed the entire thing? If they can't build on failures, they have no business being a leader or proposing this to begin with. If their willpower and psyches are so fragile that they couldn't take 51 percent saying no without disappearing to cry in a corner for years, then this city hasn't done anything and these people should be out of office immediately. If that's the kind of person who would be in power, we're in far more peril from that than anything that could happen MAPS related.

And did you ever find the source so you can say there'd be a rebate for low-income families? That'd be a rather big deal and swaying point if it is true and you didn't make it up, but the more you evade the question the more it looks like you're lying to try to convince people of your stance.

And, if one does a little research, this is precisely what happens. Mass transit in a downtown does promote development. Thanks for the interesting example, Kerry.

Yes, thanks Kerry

I saw his post from a completely different viewpoint::LolLolLol


...We recently saw a program on the Travel Channel called Man vs. Food and my youngest son wanted to eat at a place featured on the show called Rendezvous, which is located in downtown Memphis.

Our first choice was to stay in the suburbs where the hotels are cheaper, but not knowing which parts of Memphis were nice and which were not we decided to pay a little extra and stay downtown. ...

Sounded to me like it was akin to what I was saying. They were going to stay in the burbs, but because of an attraction (which happened to be located downtown) they chose to stay there instead. If the attraction had been located elsewhere, they would have stayed there instead. Downtown really didn't figure into the equation (and was potentially working against it because of the added expense).

On the positive side, he was impressed with what he saw and will be back.

By the way, how was the food? Will you be back because of it, or what you saw downtown? In other words if the food was bad, would you return?

And I never argued that adding this will hurt the others, but progress on a lot of the others have been stalled, and you can bet this one wouldn't be. How's a citizen who lives near those parks and doesn't necessarily want to have to drive downtown for one to take it? .

That citizen is clearly going to vote "no". And then, do what we all do if we want change: work for it his or herself, vote for someone who supports his or her position, etc. His or her other option is to sit around and complain about it, which is always a popular choice. You're saying city leaders should show leadership. If, as citizens, we want something, then we've got to do something other than passively sit back and wait for it as well. Everyone in political power made a personal choice to be there, for reasons good or ill, and every one of them was once a private citizen. As private citizens, we can choose to attempt to be leaders if we want change as well, rather than passively assuming it will be done for us and becoming angry when it's not done the way we want it, or we don't like who our leaders are. Since we are part of a democracy, and living in one requires compromise, if the majority wills other than what we want, we've got to accept that will and work for change.


Then what the blue hell kind of leaders would they be to begin with? What good is any of it? You think, unless we give total and complete obedience to city leaders that we should expect them to do nothing of value? When has there ever been a successful anything built up solely and entirely on success, where one failure has derailed the entire thing? If they can't build on failures, they have no business being a leader or proposing this to begin with. If their willpower and psyches are so fragile that they couldn't take 51 percent saying no without disappearing to cry in a corner for years, then this city hasn't done anything and these people should be out of office immediately. If that's the kind of person who would be in power, we're in far more peril from that than anything that could happen MAPS related. .

Are you expecting perfection from our leaders? If so, I think I see the reason behind your obvious anger. Regardless, I'm voting yes because I want MAPS to succeed, not because I'm worried about what will happen if it won't. It has nothing to do with obedience. I went to the MAPS meetings, I filled out the questionnaire, I've written the mayor and city councilmen, I've done what I can to influence what has been chosen, recognizing that they were never going to pick everything I wanted, as government is always a compromise. I don't want to wait 5 years, hoping that the next proposal will be better, or have absolutely everything I want in it, because that's not realistic, IMO. I'm willing to accept the fact that this proposal isn't perfect, but that it has things that I'd like to see implemented, things that I think would be good for the city. But, if you cannot understand how momentum behind a concept can stop or stall if it hits a major stumbling block, then I think you're not being realistic.


And did you ever find the source so you can say there'd be a rebate for low-income families? That'd be a rather big deal and swaying point if it is true and you didn't make it up, but the more you evade the question the more it looks like you're lying to try to convince people of your stance.

Working on it. I found it for the last MAPS campaign, and it's buried in a thread here somewhere, but I don't have time to go through a thousand replies on multiple threads to try and find it. I'm waiting for an answer from someone in city government. I don't make things up. Sometimes I misunderstand, or I do math badly and misinterpret, but I don't lie.

It's clear from this statement that you just. don't. get. it.

It's not just about the specific projects but the development and improvements that only happen with the investment that is MAPS. Without the original MAPS, we would not have the NBA. We would not have an upscale bowling lounge in Bricktown. We would not have a new OKC Museum of Art facility that brings us art from the Louvre and the British Museum. We would not have an official Olympic training venue. We would not have a vegan culinary school. We would not have an 850' skyscraper under construction. We would not have multiple options for downtown living. Thousands of people at Chesapeake and Devon and Sandridge would not have jobs.
You don't get it. No one suggested that the other MAPS projects weren't good for Oklahoma City. What you're suggesting is that this MAPS will spur the exact kind of growth which is ridiculous.

Aren't you late to a tea party protest somewhere?
Yes. I'm sure I am.

Larry vaguely referred to "some posters" saying that if MAPS 3 fails, the city will be set back ten years. No one said that except David Thompson. Many expressed that momentum would slow or stop, but no one here tried to say that progress would be reversed.
Oh...I see now it's just a play on words. That's exactly what Hump said on "Flashpoint". We'd totally lose momentum. It'd be ten to 20 years until we got something else going. All of the businesses that are making a nice home here would pack up and leave i guess. right?

I have an update from my query to our city government. The previous MAPS project did have the tax rebate. This one does not, so I was mistaken. I thought it would carry over, since it's the same concept, but I apologize for being misleading.

That being said, I think it should, and I think we should press our city council to create a rebate for lower income citizens. I am happy, as a taxpayer, to carry a little of the "burden" (although in this case I do not consider it a burden) for our lower income citizens. If that means we have fewer funds to carry out the projects planned, so be it.

Are you expecting perfection from our leaders? If so, I think I see the reason behind your obvious anger.
Geez..No. I want "honesty". I want "transparency". Neither is what we've gotten from our current leaders, except. Brian Walters. He's been in the little secret meetings. He see's the conflicts of some of those involved. He see's the problems with the current Public Services that haven't been addressed. He see's the budget numbers from the City Manager etc..

He know this wasn't as "good" as it could have been and we have alot of other issues we need to address right now. Others aren't stupid, but are cowards and can't speak up. Just "go along" with the program is what they are doing.

I've never understood this line of thinking. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that, if this ballot fails, the city leaders would throw up their hands and surrender? I think they've shown a commitment to trying to develop the city, so I don't see why would suddenly give up if it failed, especially since most of these people are politicians and businessmen, fields where failure is always present and just a step toward further success.

And if that is the case, isn't that just a bad spot to be in in general, if leaders aren't willing to amend their measures to try to get more approval?

I guess I really don't understand your line of thinking. Why would they come back with another plan? In your opinion, they can come up with a better plan. Whether you agree with the city or not. I think we can say this is the best plan, in their opinion.

It takes a lot of money to put these things to vote. Will the city put fourth the money to hold another election? Who is going to run the campaign and raise the money to do so? These things are run by donations. Can you really go to the donors again? Will they run another campaign just to have the unions come out against it again?

Add to the fact that the current tax will expire so another campaign would defintely be viewed by the public as a tax increase, making it that much more difficult.

I just don't see why they would come back with another MAPS. Now I don't think that means the city and its leaders will quit making this city a better place but I don't see them coming back with another initiative anywhere close to the size and scope of what we are used to in MAPS anytime soon.

have you looked at everything the maps 3 offers? I mean trails, aquatics center, park, light rail, convention center. Sounds like it includes something for everyone right? well then why cant they put it on the ballot. I feel that the reason that they dont put it on the ballot is just that, it includes everyone so all different walks of life will have something they THINK they will get if it passes but individually it is left out of the ballot so that there is no Legal binding to what does or doesn't get built so when the item you were hoping for doesn't get built you cant get bent out of shape because you voted to give the ity the money with no promise of anything. that alone should sound funny.

I would love bike trails connecting all the trails we have dont get me wrong but i am willing to put what i WANT aside for what WE NEED. They estimated and got money for Fire station #6 which was to be put in bricktown in 200 yet because everything has gotten more expensive the amount of money is no longer enough. why wont this happen to maps3 why do we think that we have a good number to build all these things in 7 years without running out of money yet we cant build a fire station that was fully funded in 1 year.

Just saying it is too vague.

I do believe that the Ford center is approx 12 million short on fixing it up the the NBA requirements. where is that extra money coming from. oh i bet maps 3. so if we take 12 million from maps 3 what project is going to to get cut.

tapers out more as you leave the core and get into the more heavily resided parts of the city, then fades out completely as you get to the outskirts.

You act as if no one lives inside the inner loop. The suburban areas of OKC have much bigger homes on much bigger lots. I guarantee you these areas are NOT "more heavily resided" than the inner city.


How's a citizen who lives near those parks and doesn't necessarily want to have to drive downtown for one to take it?

This idea that you don't have a park closer than downtown is ridiculous. That's impossible.


You don't get it. No one suggested that the other MAPS projects weren't good for Oklahoma City. What you're suggesting is that this MAPS will spur the exact kind of growth which is ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous?


Oh...I see now it's just a play on words.

Like a pun?? No...

As private citizens, we can choose to attempt to be leaders if we want change as well, rather than passively assuming it will be done for us and becoming angry when it's not done the way we want it, or we don't like who our leaders are.

Or, if they dont' have the deep pockets that politicians tend to have, they can vote against any measure they want. Not everyone has the ability and resources to run for office, despite what they told us in our middle school civics lessons.


Are you expecting perfection from our leaders?

Nope, I want honest, reasonable discussion, the type that actually informs people as opposed to spouts off the motto and buzzwords over and over. I believe in questioning those in power, whether I voted for them or not (and even if they aren't voted into power, just ask Iron). I want to be able to ask questions and actually have people try to answer them, as opposed to people calling it "opinion" when it's not and ignoring it. As a citizen in a democracy, that's something we're entitled to. If you can't accept that some people simply want honesty behind it rather than partisan bullet points, you're the one whose not being realistic. There is no anger behind it at all, there's a desire for real discussion as opposed to cheerleading. And I don't think anything bad has ever come from true, honest discussion.

No one ever said anything about perfection. People have said things about such dastardly concepts as "accountability" but no one said anything about expecting perfection.


I have an update from my query to our city government. The previous MAPS project did have the tax rebate. This one does not, so I was mistaken. I thought it would carry over, since it's the same concept, but I apologize for being misleading.

Thank you for looking. I found it odd that something like that wouldn't have been mentioned in any place I had read, as it should be a rather big selling point.


I guess I really don't understand your line of thinking. Why would they come back with another plan? In your opinion, they can come up with a better plan. Whether you agree with the city or not. I think we can say this is the best plan, in their opinion.

Why? Well, I assume a few things.

One: that these are mostly successful individuals in their private lives and businesses.

Two: that they are competent.

Now, among those groups I cannot think of a single individual who has ever had to operate without any sort of failure, who has never had to compromise, or who has ever had to try a second time to complete something. The Buffets', the Gates', the Jobs', the Rockerfellers', well, you get the picture. Anyone who has ever been successful for a long stretch of time. Politicians fail to get things done all the time. They fail for a variety of reasons. Most of the time, they keep at it, they look at what happened, figure out how to fix it, and try again. If they don't, they don't tend to stay in office very long. I can't think of a single individual who has been successful in life without ever having failed and had to try again.

And, finally, I never argued any actual point, I merely asked questions, something pro-MAPS people seem to have a problem dealing with.


It takes a lot of money to put these things to vote. Will the city put fourth the money to hold another election? Who is going to run the campaign and raise the money to do so? These things are run by donations. Can you really go to the donors again? Will they run another campaign just to have the unions come out against it again?

Yes on all points. Donors will donate to what they feel strongly about, politicians will try again on a topic they feel strongly about, and failing to win hasn't tended to stop someone who feels strongly about trying to run again. What's to make this different?


Add to the fact that the current tax will expire so another campaign would defintely be viewed by the public as a tax increase, making it that much more difficult.

I don't think many people buy into that argument to begin with. I think most voting people are smart enough to see through the mostly transparent smokescreen on that point. They know there's no practical difference.


I just don't see why they would come back with another MAPS. Now I don't think that means the city and its leaders will quit making this city a better place but I don't see them coming back with another initiative anywhere close to the size and scope of what we are used to in MAPS anytime soon.

If it fails, they should look at why. If it's the size and scope, that should be adjusted. That's what successful people do in life. If they can't amend their stance they shouldn't be in politics.


You act as if no one lives inside the inner loop. The suburban areas of OKC have much bigger homes on much bigger lots. I guarantee you these areas are NOT "more heavily resided" than the inner city.

No, I act like the majority of the population of the city lives outside the core area. If you have population figures to show the contrary, feel free. I'd be glad to amend my stance.


This idea that you don't have a park closer than downtown is ridiculous. That's impossible.

The city parks website shows exactly where the majority of the parks are located, so you've not exactly said anything that I can't look there to see is incorrect. I see the majority of the parks toward the central part of the city, and many areas in the outskirts with no parks. None of that is addressed in MAPS and all these things could definitely be MAPS projects if they so wanted.

You act as if there's nothing downtown but concrete, despite the city itself showing a large number of parks there.

I have an update from my query to our city government. The previous MAPS project did have the tax rebate. This one does not, so I was mistaken. I thought it would carry over, since it's the same concept, but I apologize for being misleading.

That being said, I think it should, and I think we should press our city council to create a rebate for lower income citizens. I am happy, as a taxpayer, to carry a little of the "burden" (although in this case I do not consider it a burden) for our lower income citizens. If that means we have fewer funds to carry out the projects planned, so be it.Their getting a swimming pool in lieu of a tax rebate. They can't have both.

No, I act like the majority of the population of the city lives outside the core area. If you have population figures to show the contrary, feel free. I'd be glad to amend my stance.



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (OK) Zip Code Map - Locations, Demographics - list of zip codes (http://www.city-data.com/zipmaps/Oklahoma-City-Oklahoma.html)

OKC Population Density by Zip: (Average: 909)

1. 73102 (Downtown) 5223
2. 73119 (Inner City) 5190
3. 73106 (Inner City) 4801
4. 73112 (Inner City/Suburban) 4287
5. 73139 (Inner City/Suburban) 4117
6. 73162 (Suburban) 3944
7. 73109 (Inner City) 3902
8. 73132 (Suburban) 3615
9. 73159 (Suburban) 3615
10. 73103 (Inner City) 3558
11. 73107 (Inner City) 3334
12. 73118 (Inner City) 3298
13. 73120 (Suburban) 3215
14. 73116 (Suburban) 2382
15. 73108 (Inner City) 2280
16. 73127 (Suburban/Rural) 2170
17. 73130 (Suburban) 2049
18. 73149 (Inner City) 1765
19. 73114 (Suburban) 1747
20. 73111 (Inner City/Rural) 1605
21. 73135 (Suburban) 1553
22. 73129 (Inner City) 1507
23. 73104 (Bricktown/Health Center) 1343
24. 73117 (Inner City) 1197
25. 73105 (Inner City) 1177
26. 73170 (Suburban/Rural) 1155
27. 73134 (Suburban) 711
28. 73142 (Suburban) 686
29. 73121 (Rural/Suburban) 322
30. 73141 (Rural) 282
31. 73128 (Rural) 279
32. 73150 (Rural) 273
33. 73179 (Rural) 263
34. 73151 (Rural) 253
35. 73169 (Rural) 252
36. 73131 (Suburban/Rural) 191
37. 73165 (Rural) 118
38. 73173 (Rural) 36

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (OK) Zip Code Map - Locations, Demographics - list of zip codes (http://www.city-data.com/zipmaps/Oklahoma-City-Oklahoma.html)

OKC Population Density by Zip: (Average: 909)

1. 73102 (Downtown) 5223
2. 73119 (Inner City) 5190
3. 73106 (Inner City) 4801
4. 73112 (Inner City/Suburban) 4287
5. 73139 (Inner City/Suburban) 4117
6. 73162 (Suburban) 3944
7. 73109 (Inner City) 3902
8. 73132 (Suburban) 3615
9. 73159 (Suburban) 3615
10. 73103 (Inner City) 3558
11. 73107 (Inner City) 3334
12. 73118 (Inner City) 3298
13. 73120 (Suburban) 3215
14. 73116 (Suburban) 2382
15. 73108 (Inner City) 2280
16. 73127 (Suburban/Rural) 2170
17. 73130 (Suburban) 2049
18. 73149 (Inner City) 1765
19. 73114 (Suburban) 1747
20. 73111 (Inner City/Rural) 1605
21. 73135 (Suburban) 1553
22. 73129 (Inner City) 1507
23. 73104 (Bricktown/Health Center) 1343
24. 73117 (Inner City) 1197
25. 73105 (Inner City) 1177
26. 73170 (Suburban/Rural) 1155
27. 73134 (Suburban) 711
28. 73142 (Suburban) 686
29. 73121 (Rural/Suburban) 322
30. 73141 (Rural) 282
31. 73128 (Rural) 279
32. 73150 (Rural) 273
33. 73179 (Rural) 263
34. 73151 (Rural) 253
35. 73169 (Rural) 252
36. 73131 (Suburban/Rural) 191
37. 73165 (Rural) 118
38. 73173 (Rural) 36

That's actually population density, rather than population figures. Add those up and you don't get the total pop for Oklahoma. City Nevertheless, they do seem to state that things are contrary to what I believed at the time, and it's actual data, so I thank you very much for providing it.

I know it's population density. That's what you have to look at. There may be a lot of little parks in the downtown and inner core areas, but that's because more people are crammed in to that space.

Naturally, if you choose to live in a more rural area of the city, parks are going to be further apart. Even areas with big subdivisions are much less dense.

What you can see in the parks website is that there are large portions of the city that have none, particularly in the southwest and southeast, while the core of the city has a high concentration of parks, which tapers out more as you leave the core and get into the more heavily resided parts of the city, then fades out completely as you get to the outskirts. From what I see, the downtown core is fairly well represented by parks, according to the city. I'm just not seeing the huge lack there.

Southwest? The city recently built the 158-acre South Lakes Regional Park, 4210 SW 119, Oklahoma City's first new regional park in twenty years. It opened August 31, 2004...