The Attorney I knew well was exceptionally smart, but never made those claims.

Obviously, I'm smarter.
:tiphat:

How is that BETTER?

More population, more people moving here from Edmond and Moore, more retail = more tax revenue = more municipal services.

A concept so easy, even a lawyer can grasp it.

The thought of building capital improvements in a down economy being cheap is true. However, time is the variable. The way that Oklahoma City has done things in the past, prove that this idea is fallable. For example, lets pass a bond to build 3 new fire stations. Hooray we have money for new stations. 9years later, the stations have not been started yet. The money originally set up for each station is now approx 1/2 of the current building cost. So, further delays on new fire stations because now they cost too much. If the contractors were to bid the job immediately and be held to those bids, then the idea would stand the test. Remember the ball park, council had to repeatedly vote to add money due to over runs on construction. Why didn't they just hold the contractors to the original bids?
Unless you believe everything you read gives the whole story, and that our Government at any level is clean and transparent, then most likely you don't have the full story on this issue. ( Including myself ). Funny how we all like to take sides when there is an arguement, but we won't admit that we don't know the whole story. ( both sides )

This is just a note to say that Andy157 and I had a really really fine meeting this morning at the IHOP in Bricktown -- we were joined part of the time by a mystery guest -- and Andy157 gave me a good bit of education (not sure that it's all sunken in yet) about the history that relates to issues that developed after the 1989 3/4 cent sales tax was approved by the citizens ... he gave me a good education about many things, too many for me to enumerate here ... I wasn't taking notes ... some of which has to do with the city's budgeting methods, some of which relates to litigation in District Court which related at least in part to whether the city was appropriately allocating the 3/4 cent tax ... the case is here: OCIS Case Summary for CJ-1992-3864- THE CITY OKLAHOMA CITY VS STONE CHARLES L ET AL (Oklahoma County District Courts) (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getcaseinformation.asp?query=true&srch=0&web=true&db=Oklahoma&icasetype=&iDATEL=&iDATEH=&iCLOSEDL=&iCLOSEDH=&number=cj-1992-3864&iLast=&iFirst=&iMiddle=&iID=&iDOBL=&iDOBH=&SearchType=0&iDCPT=&iDCType=0&iYear=&iNumber=&icitation=&submitted=true) ... which resulted in a negotiated agreed Journal Entry of Judgment filed on January 12, 1993. The actual document isn't on-line at OSCN (the agreed judgment was filed in 1993, well before such documents came to be available on-line). OSCN's docket sheet entry merely reads ...


... and, of course, that note tells nothing of the content of the agreed judgment which is a matter of record. Andy157 kindly gave me a copy of the lengthy document (55 pages including attachments, if I counted correctly) and I've not had time to read it yet. Some of the related history relates to blatant misdirecting of funds by the city both before and even after that agreed judgment was entered into.

It is not my place to identify who Andy157 is -- that is a matter for him to decide -- but I will certainly say that he is quite a gentleman and that he certainly has been in a position to give excellent 1st hand historical information which has, step by step, led to where things are today from the firefighters point of view, and, to some extent, the FOP's even though he did not assume to speak for its point of view. Andy157's lineage is the red-truck type, the guys who never give you tickets when your car is parked in front of your house and the car tag is 2 months out of date (I mention that because I got 2 such tickets on back-to-back days last week). I didn't think to mention this to him (but do now if he is reading) but his group is the type that saved my wife's life several years back when she slumped on the stairs and could not breathe but whose emergency service arrived well before AMCare's people did -- because of their quick and skilled action my wife is not only alive but is supporting me today! I'm a bum. I love those guys! I have no doubt whatever about the truthfulness of his remarks or that what he had to say was fact-based. I left the meeting with no doubt that the city did not always live up to either the spirit or the letter of the 1989 3/4 cent sales tax ballot and may not being so today. (I like the cops, too, even if the out-of-date tickets on my parked car were a bit annoying. For many years, I officed with a fine man-in-blue who got his law degree while serving as a policeman, one of the finest guys that I know).

It is/was one of the most informative 1 1/2 hours that I have spent in quite a long time, and I thank him for initiating our get-together and for spending the time with me. He wasn't trying to persuade; neither was I. For me, it was just an education in history, a detailed part of it that few would probably know first hand. And I got to eat a short stack of yummy pancakes ... I haven't had any for quite a time, and the coffee was good, too.


As a sidebar note, he arrived before I did ... he made a grand entrance driving a huge red firetruck ... I'm just kidding. Some nearby firefighters were coincidentally at IHOP at the same time and their rig was parked in the median in the street immediately west of IHOP.
I'm still not getting the connection between MAPS 3 and the existing staffing and/or other issues between the unions and the city ... in my view, both the city (re MAPS 3) and the unions (particularly the firefighters re the 1989 sales tax and matters which transpired after that time) have clearly legitimate issues to advance, and that has been my position pretty much if not altogether from the beginning. I still do not see that each "side's" issues are necessarily in conflict with the other's. Maybe if we talked longer, I'd see the connection, who can say.

Regardless, there are people of good will on both sides of every one of the issues involved and it's a sad day for Oklahoma City that cool and calm heads and personalities cannot find it possible to have a seat at Oklahoma City's table and figure out reasonable and long term solutions, all the way around. I'm talking about the mayor and city manager. I'm talking about the union leaders. I'm talking about the citizens who are tracking this election and the union issues. I'm talking about the chamber and business interests. No one is 100% in the right and no one is 100% in the wrong. But, with the blazing dueling pistols, if not oozies, maybe later even some shoulder-held small nuclear devices, which are being fired and/or anticipated as we speak, that seems more unlikely to occur as each day goes by.

Doug, thanks for your comments. I also enjoyed our meeting, and I look forward to having an opportunity to do it again. It is difficult to convey 20 years worth of conveluted history into a hour and a half, or two, and even more difficult to soak it all up.

Before our meeting I only knew you as a faceless name on a internet chat forum. However, I have always considered you to be a person of integrity, open-minded, fair, and willing to listen to both sides. After our meeting my thoughts as well as my personal opinion of you have not changed, they were simply confirmed.

If you recall I mentioned the length of time it takes for me to convey my thoughts to writing. There are a couple of reasons, and my lack of typing skills tops the list. By the way is there a trick on how a slow typer can avoid being logged out?

I will close for now by saying these two things. This is an unfortunate situation for all of the parties involved. I wish things were different, but they're not.

Secondly, I am glad that the men and women of the OCFD were able to help your wife. If what they did helped play a role in her survival and gave her the opportunity to continue doing what she does, that makes me proud. No matter how this ends up, good or bad. What they did for her and others like her will continue. And though many things will change, their service to the public, and their dedication to their profession, will not.

Obviously, I'm smarter.
I doubt it. Your definitely very smart and are the "jack of all trades". Just ask yourself.

More population, more people moving here from Edmond and Moore, more retail = more tax revenue = more municipal services.
That's a joke right? Can you explain why it hasn't happened then? I welcome your expertise in the management of our City. I don't think there has been more people moving to OKC from Moore or Edmond.

http://markshannon.com/CORNETT.htm

This is an unfortunate situation for all of the parties involved. I wish things were different, but they're not.

I concur. It is what it is.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I don't think there has been more people moving to OKC from Moore or Edmond.

Well, let me rephrase... we don't care so much about people moving here as spending money here. You can't deny that improvements such as the Ford Center, Bricktown, etc., capture tax revenue which would otherwise likely be spent in the suburbs.

I've explained before -- competition for sales tax revenues is tough and cities are doing what they can to compete with one another. Suburbs have sunk their cities all over the nation because they kept tax revenue at home. OKC has to do what it can to get that tax revenue back.

God I hope this thing passes. Not only to spite the fire and police unions who are campaigning against it, but to actually help them in the long run by bringing more tax revenue. Its a win-win!

There are some great places to live in the city. What will hopefully happen is that people discover that there is value and charm in the city. Neighborhoods like Edgemere, the Plaza District, Linwood, Mesta Park, the Paseo, Jefferson Park, Putnam Heights, etc. have homes with architectural details you cannot get at almost any price in the suburbs. In addition, you have to drive less to spend time downtown, to go to work downtown or at the Health Sciences Center and there's more to do once you get there than ever before. So, I'm hoping that people buying starter homes or moving up from starter homes look in the city first. Having a streetcar will help tremendously with that, especially if the route expands a little, as people will be able to travel around town without bothering with a car. Downtown is, of course, another great housing option, but there are many more, at a tremendous range of prices and sizes. That's the trend being seen in many cities.....that people are tired of their commutes, tired of cookie cutter homes and are looking to move closer in to the city. But, to encourage that trend, you've got to have a great downtown and/or surrounds, and that's what MAPS is all about.

Just got an emaill that Not This Maps is now following me on twitter. As of now they are following 160 people and rapidly climbing, have 3 followers and have tweeted nothing so far.

Of course you cant blame them for using it but the funny thing is I have a feeling that about 80% of OKC twitterers are in favor of maps3.

More population, more people moving here from Edmond and Moore, more retail = more tax revenue = more municipal services.

A concept so easy, even a lawyer can grasp it.

The facts are not in your favor. More retail = more tax revenue = less muicipal services. Those are the facts.

The facts are not in your favor. More retail = more tax revenue = less muicipal services. Those are the facts.

More tax revenue = LESS municipal services? Thats not a fact, its burying your head in the sand. Explain how your logic came up with that conclusion?

God I hope this thing passes. Not only to spite the fire and police unions who are campaigning against it, but to actually help them in the long run by bringing more tax revenue. Its a win-win!The only way is to vote and tell all your friends to vote especially the ones that are for Maps 3 (lol).

More tax revenue = LESS municipal services? Thats not a fact, its burying your head in the sand. Explain how your logic came up with that conclusion?

The fact is that there are less police officers, firefighter and public works employees than ever. This while the city has been taking in more taxes than ever. I didn't say it was logical, just a fact. You see if the more retail = more tax revenue = more municipal services model had been followed, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

The fact is that there are less police officers, firefighter and public works employees than ever. This while the city has been taking in more taxes than ever. I didn't say it was logical, just a fact. You see if the more retail = more tax revenue = more municipal services model had been followed, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Thats not a mathmatical problem, thats a decision made over the years by municipal administrations. Thats a gripe to take up with the city council and the mayor, not sabotage the city's future by voting down a proven method of improving our city because your pet project wasn't included. I think most everyone has agreed with your ultimate and overall point, its the method and the logic behind the actions you support that is wrong. You're arguements are like the guy who wants to commit suicide by jumping in front of a car. You kill yourself and selfishly ruin someone else's life in the process.

The fact is that there are less police officers, firefighter and public works employees than ever. This while the city has been taking in more taxes than ever. I didn't say it was logical, just a fact. You see if the more retail = more tax revenue = more municipal services model had been followed, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Curious... do you have the data to back this up? Are you stating the statistic in pure numbers or City employees per capita?

Curious... do you have the data to back this up? Are you stating the statistic in pure numbers or City employees per capita?I don't recall what this City's population was in 2000. However, I would guess it was less than it is today. If thats true, then considering there were 999 Firefighters in 2000, and only 938 today, then it would seem were behind in both catagories.

Andy - thanks for actually having information available. :) Population in the 2000 census was 506,000; the current estimate is 555,000. If you go by a per capita number for Fire, then we were at 506.5 citizens per firefighter in 2000. In 2009, we're at 591.7 citizens per firefighter.

What are the police staff numbers? What about an argument that we can do less with more because we have new technologies/more efficiencies that allow us to do more with less?

One final line of questioning. Why didn't the IAFF and FOP bring this up months ago? Why wasn't a public campaign done after the Ford Center vote, when we knew Maps 3 would be next? Why fight now and make everyone get mud in their eye?

Andy - thanks for actually having information available. :) Population in the 2000 census was 506,000; the current estimate is 555,000. If you go by a per capita number for Fire, then we were at 506.5 citizens per firefighter in 2000. In 2009, we're at 591.7 citizens per firefighter.

What are the police staff numbers? What about an argument that we can do less with more because we have new technologies/more efficiencies that allow us to do more with less?

One final line of questioning. Why didn't the IAFF and FOP bring this up months ago? Why wasn't a public campaign done after the Ford Center vote, when we knew Maps 3 would be next? Why fight now and make everyone get mud in their eye?Those are fair questions. First, I can tell you this issue has been brought up, not months ago, years ago. I can't tell you why a public campaign was not launched after the F.C. vote. I wish I could. I wished they had. I do believe there has been a lesson learned here. In the future I don't think that option will be overlooked. Why now? I can only assume they had reached a breaking point. Desperate people sometimes take desperate actions. Police and Fire issues aside. I will still stand behind my beliefs that this MAPS plan is irresponsible. Thats of course only my opinion, and that is what my one vote will based upon.

Thats of course only my opinion, and that is what my one vote will based upon.

Not going with the vote early, vote often, plan? :Smiley259 j/k

If Fire and Police had been addressed previously, would you be voting for this, or do you think the whole program is ill-advised?

For what its worth, regarding the City's staffing issues, according to the City's own 2008 budget report (available at OKC.gov):

“Although the number of City staff has increased in the past few years, we are still operating BELOW 1994 staffing levels.”

Obviously this is talking about all city employees, but a cursory examination of the various budget reports (again available at OKC.gov) supports what they have been saying about staffing issues. Fortunately, one doesn't have to weed through the several hundred pages of each report, as Fire & Police have their own sections.

cafeboef, I think the above quote from Larry will answer your question.

As for your other question about why this is coming up now, we have been trying to get this problem fixed by the powers that be for years, to no avail. We have even offered solutions, when asked, only to be rebuffed at every turn. We have been told to wait, that they will get to us, for years on end. They have no intention of fixing the staffing issues on their own. Quite simply the time has come.

If you recall I mentioned the length of time it takes for me to convey my thoughts to writing. There are a couple of reasons, and my lack of typing skills tops the list. By the way is there a trick on how a slow typer can avoid being logged out?
It looks to me like you do just fine. I've not experienced being "timed out" here so I'm not sure what you mean ... does your stuff get lost or something?

Anyway, you could type out your message in whatever text editor you use (MS Word, WordPerfect, whatever) and take all the time you want. Then, you could select all (Ctrl+A), and with everything selected copy to the clipboard (Ctrl+C) and here or wherever else you want to paste what you have copied, press Ctrl+V. Maybe that will help.

Andy - thanks for actually having information available. :) Population in the 2000 census was 506,000; the current estimate is 555,000. If you go by a per capita number for Fire, then we were at 506.5 citizens per firefighter in 2000. In 2009, we're at 591.7 citizens per firefighter.

What are the police staff numbers? What about an argument that we can do less with more because we have new technologies/more efficiencies that allow us to do more with less?

One final line of questioning. Why didn't the IAFF and FOP bring this up months ago? Why wasn't a public campaign done after the Ford Center vote, when we knew Maps 3 would be next? Why fight now and make everyone get mud in their eye?Sorry I should have addressed your first two questions. Didn't mean to skip right on by them. I can't speak to the Police staffing issues having never been one. It is true, new technologies and equipment have without doubt improved the efficiency level in the Fire Service. However, in the Fire Service, when saving lives and protecting personal property are at stake, time is criticle, and less manpower takes more of it.

I don't think it answers my question of what technology and other advances have done to make the City more efficient, which thereby reduces the need for as many employees.

Regardless, I agree with Andy:
I can't tell you why a public campaign was not launched after the F.C. vote. I wish I could. I wished they had. I do believe there has been a lesson learned here.

The whole debate may be necessary, but doing it now muddies the message. No one is going to win, politically, after this debate. Claims of "union this" and "business lobby that" are going to hurt the citizens in the end, no matter how the vote ends.

Not going with the vote early, vote often, plan? :Smiley259 j/k

If Fire and Police had been addressed previously, would you be voting for this, or do you think the whole program is ill-advised?No I would not be voting for this. This latest turn of events had nothing to do with my opposition. Somewhere in all of this mess, I am on record in this forum voicing my opposition. First and foremost due to the Fairgrounds receiving a portion of this MAPS funding. I also oppose the ballot and the way in which it is drafted. In my opinion each of these projects should be required to pass or fail on their individual merit.

It looks to me like you do just fine. I've not experienced being "timed out" here so I'm not sure what you mean ... does your stuff get lost or something?

Anyway, you could type out your message in whatever text editor you use (MS Word, WordPerfect, whatever) and take all the time you want. Then, you could select all (Ctrl+A), and with everything selected copy to the clipboard (Ctrl+C) and here or wherever else you want to paste what you have copied, press Ctrl+V. Maybe that will help. Thanks I will try that. Can't tell you how many times I've lost an hours worth of typing. I wish now I hadn't ditched typing back in Highschool, or English, or math...

Unless we start using computers or robots to put out fires, (those 2 don't mix with water at all),perform pre-hospital medical care, cut someone out of a mangled car, or one of many tasks that only manpower can perform, Technology has its limits in the Fire Service. Everything we do is task oriented and requires personnel.

I don't think it answers my question of what technology and other advances have done to make the City more efficient, which thereby reduces the need for as many employees.

Regardless, I agree with Andy:

The whole debate may be necessary, but doing it now muddies the message. No one is going to win, politically, after this debate. Claims of "union this" and "business lobby that" are going to hurt the citizens in the end, no matter how the vote ends.

cafebeouf, you started me thinking can the City do more with less? Have they been forced to do more with less? If so, who has been forced to do more with less? Does anyone have more? So I looked up the City's Employee numbers for the last 4 fiscal years. These can be found on the City's website. You may be shocked (I wasn't) to see what they reveal. Keep in mind that the City claims General Government (Management & Exec) expenditures are only 5% of the budget. Whereas Public Safety (P & F) eat up 65% of the City's General Fund.

FY/06-07
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,387
Police (Sworn) 1,029 of 4,387 23.5%
Fire (Uniformed) 948 of 4,387 21.6%
Management & Exec. 954 of 4,387 21.8%


FY/07-08
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,420
Police (Sworn) 1,033 of 4,420 23.4%
Fire (Uniformed) 948 of 4,420 21.4%
Management & Exec. 979 of 4,420 22.0%


FY/08-09
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,453
Police (Sworn) 1,035 of 4,453 23.2%
Fire (Uniformed) 951 of 4,453 21.4%
Management & Exec. 1,004 of 4,453 22.6%


FY/09-10
Total Budgeted Employment Positions 4,455
Police (Sworn) 1,038 of 4,455 23.3%
Fire (Uniformed) 950 of 4,455 21.3%
Management & Exec. 1,019 of 4,455 22.9%


Executive: (7)
City Manger (1)
City Auditor (1)
Municipal Atty (1)
Municipal Judge (4)

FY/06-07 – FY/09-10

Police +9 Down .02%
Fire +2 Down .03%
Mang. & Exec. +65 Up 1.01%

Management aren't they special

Police +9 Down .02%
Fire +2 Down .03%
Mang. & Exec. +65 Up 1.01%

Management aren't they special
Amazing!

Facts...
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.com/Links_&_Documents_files/Not%20This%20MAPS%20info-1.pdf

What about the rest of City employees? Let's see the whole picture... did Utilities go up or down at the same time?

What about the rest of City employees? Let's see the whole picture... did Utilities go up or down at the same time?Here you go

AFSCME (Non-Uniform)
FY/06-07 1,456 33.2%
FY/07-08 1,460 33.0%
FY/08-09 1,463 32.8%
FY/09-10 1,448 32.5%


FY/06-07 - FY/09-10 -8 Down .07%


I'm not sure what utilities has to do with any of this, but it wouldn't matter because I don't know

I think it proves that employees, other than Mgmt/Exec, are steady or slightly down across the board.

Some of the Mgmt employees added were in the GO Bond Program, which was woefully understaffed and not delivering projects on time. Adding these employees actually helps Fire, because it actually got the new fire stations moving... behind, but imagine if the new people hadn't been hired.

Some of the Mgmt employees added were in the GO Bond Program, which was woefully understaffed and not delivering projects on time. Adding these employees actually helps Fire, because it actually got the new fire stations moving.
Fair enough. Which employee's were added for the GO Bond Program? How many were needed and what was their title? What part of the GO Bond Program are they dealing with that a new hire was needed? What is the current status of the building of the fire stations? What phase of the process are they in with the added help? Planning or Breaking ground? Also, if they build 10 new fire stations who's gonna man them? I wondered if the new hires have figured that out. I don't think it's a "Fireman Included" purchase.

B.S. on execs an management getting projects done in time, Fire Stations for example. More like typical red tape. I know who is in charge of the fire stations being built on the fire department side. Hoops and Hurdles. 10 years just to break ground, some still havn't been started, come on.

I've completed pretty much a transcript of both press conferences and will start the final section (Analysis & Commentary) this afternoon. You can both listen to and now read verbatim (if I did my transcription accurately) of what both sides had to say last week. If you notice transcription errors, please let me know.

Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/11/great-maps-3-debate.html)

I've completed pretty much a transcript of both press conferences and will start the final section (Analysis & Commentary) this afternoon. You can both listen to and now read verbatim (if I did my transcription accurately) of what both sides had to say last week. If you notice transcription errors, please let me know.

Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/11/great-maps-3-debate.html)

Doug, regardless of how you vote, I respect all the research and analysis that you have done. I also understand that you did meet with another poster personally and I hope that was productive. Fire has tryed several different avenues in concern while dealing with the city, but unfortunately the only one they understand is of the legal matter. We have had to force issues legally for years i. e. when we find out that they are spending/relocating funds illegally. My bottom line is that city services needs to grow in proportion with population and economic development and has not been the case for quite some time and we are out of bullets. The no oppostion was quite large before we came on board and this is an oppturtunity to possible gain some political power or at least get them to understand that the city has current needs that have been overlooked too long. With are for economic development and Maps and will be for another if it is done right.

Doug, regardless of how you vote, I respect all the research and analysis that you have done. I also understand that you did meet with another poster personally and I hope that was productive. Fire has tryed several different avenues in concern while dealing with the city, but unfortunately the only one they understand is of the legal matter. We have had to force issues legally for years i. e. when we find out that they are spending/relocating funds illegally. My bottom line is that city services needs to grow in proportion with population and economic development and has not been the case for quite some time and we are out of bullets. The no oppostion was quite large before we came on board and this is an oppturtunity to possible gain some political power or at least get them to understand that the city has current needs that have been overlooked too long. With are for economic development and Maps and will be for another if it is done right.
Thanks, Golfer,

Yes, the meeting with another poster was very informative, and, as I said before, helped a great deal in "putting meat on the bones" of my already existing sympathy for the needs of and background associated with the unions' long-standing issues with the city, particularly the firefighters, and that includes a primer on what you mentioned, "spending/relocating funds illegally" and/or contrary to the spirit if not letter of the earlier sales tax. I fully agree with you that "city services" (which I take that as a code word for "police and fire" services) need to expand as the city's population grows. I'm 100% in favor of that happening, and I comprehend at least a little that the unions have been boxed into a corner by city actions that have previously occurred.

Where we differ, of course, is whether this is the time, place, and manner, for those issues to be addressed. I also disagree that the unions are "out of bullets." If public sentiment remains favorable to police and fire, I see it as totally plausible that a separate 1/4 cent (or whatever is appropriate) permanent sales tax would find favor with Oklahoma City voters, just as occurred before via the citizen led and successful 1989 sales tax election.

Good will is the key, I suppose, to such things happening and the unions may be risking that element in their opposition to MAPS 3, particularly in the manner in which such opposition has thus far been presented. Just guessing, but my impressions are: (a) The FOP is much more "in your face" than is the firefighters union, and not just today but over the past couple of decades; (b) the firefighters are likely more inclined to be reasonable in their bargaining and other positions than is the FOP. Only my impressions, not fact.

But, when you say, "With are for economic development and Maps and will be for another if it is done right," that can mean too many things to too many different groups of people. If Phil Sipe was accurately reported in the Journal Record article, below, he saw it as conceivable that the firefighters could do a 180 and support MAPS 3, if certain unspoken conditions were satisfied. So, if that be true, "if it is done right" could easily equal the MAPS 3 projects, as is, as long as the firefighter conditions are satisfied. Don't you think?

Credibility issues are involved. A November 11 Journal Record article reported,


Sipe said that although he has told city officials that the MAPS 3 opposition could evaporate, it's not entirely up to him. ¶ "That is one of the things that's really up to the membership. They're the ultimate authority here. If they're willing to reverse the previous stand they've taken and decide to rescind that original decision, then we're certainly willing to do a 180-degree turnaround and support it," Sipe said.
So ... which is true? Is MAPS 3 is a bad plan, regardless of union issues, and it should be opposed regardless of union issues? Or is it wholly conceivable that the firefighters could do a 180-degree turnaround if staffing and/or other issues are satisfied, in which case it must be assumed that MAPS 3 is not necessarily a bad plan at all?

There is no dove-tail that I can see in the two positions just described.

After having just lived in Denver for several years I can wholeheartedly, 100% DISagree with you on this. You won't find many people at all who don't absolutely love living in Denver for the views of the mountains, proximity to skiing and recreation and the overall weather. Other than Denver and Aurora public schools, the schools in the region are generally pretty good. Of course, people are there due to the high tech and aerospace work but you will be hardpressed to find anyone who doesn't find it important to live there because of the mountains.

Like you said, they're there for the work. As I said, the view is just a plus. But do you really think if their jobs moved elsewhere, how many would quit and be homeless just to live there?

A convention center is not the Rocky Mountains. There's nothing wrong with beautification, but a convention center is nothing, it's the furthest thing from the minds of citizens unless they make their money directly from it. It's for tourists. A single building isn't going to change anything in this city, it doesn't matter if it's built for conventions or by Devon.


Well put Betts. Even though OKC is not blessed with oceans, mountains, beaches etc... it can still make up with ammenities and cleanliness. Core to Shore addresses part of the issue of aesthetics with all that embarrasing blight South of I-40. It is important how outsiders perceive the city. Why are so many residents against a beautiful park and a covention center that may take OKC to a new level with conventions and $$ pouring into the city. There is a saying, to make money you have to spend money. There are "some" residents that do not wish to advance or progress no matter what. I am hoping for the sake of OKC future that the MAPS 3 will pass as the momentum must continue or I believe it will cause stagnation and apathy for residents.

I'm not against it, I'm arguing against the notion that these are all the only things and the city is being perfect with its proposals and if this proposal fails the city will fall back into the dark ages. I think people are greatly exaggerating what the affect would be if it failed. Both sides are exaggerating it, frankly.

Second, a convention center isn't an amenity. Most citizens will gain nothing if one is never built. Some will profit directly, most won't see any difference. A park may or may not be, depending on if its feasible for a person to go there. But is it a greater amenity than any park getting shut down because the city doesn't want to support it? And is it more important than feeling safe in your home?

I'm not against it, I'm arguing against the notion that these are all the only things and the city is being perfect with its proposals and if this proposal fails the city will fall back into the dark ages. I think people are greatly exaggerating what the affect would be if it failed. Both sides are exaggerating it, frankly.

Second, a convention center isn't an amenity. Most citizens will gain nothing if one is never built. Some will profit directly, most won't see any difference. A park may or may not be, depending on if its feasible for a person to go there. But is it a greater amenity than any park getting shut down because the city doesn't want to support it? And is it more important than feeling safe in your home?
I think that most everyone here would agree that David Thompson's comment about that is way beyond the pale, and is not well regarded by anyone other than him, so I'll leave your 1st point at that.

As the the convention center, I disagree. I am persuaded that a convention center can and does generate lots of money to the local economy. The only questions are (1) how much, and (2) is the amount worth the expense to put the city in a position to garner much larger conventions than we can presently attract? With a convention center smaller than Tulsa and Wichita, we are presumably missing out on convention revenue. That fact doesn't answer #2, but I'd suppose it's answer to be "yes."

The city's offer to the Firefighters, an actual city document not reported elsewhere on the internet, is available here:

Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/11/great-maps-3-debate.html#offer)

The item also states what was proposed to the FOP, though less perfectly, as is explained in the article.

A must see, I just finished watching a Steve Hunt at the Nov. 17th city council meeting at about 1hr.& 28 mins. into the meeting. He had documentation of everything he spoke about. He mentioned thta the chamber of commerce recieves 5 million a year from the hotel tax fund and they are planning on using some of it to advertise for yes for maps 3 by buying two 30 second commericals during the OU/OSU game, $85,000 on channel 4 owned by a Texas based company and $125,000 on channel 9 starting Monday. He also states that a Norman resident is running the yes for maps 3 campaign. He talks about Councilman Mcatee's comment at the OPAC meeting where Mcatee said that the bible says to follow the king and Mayor Cornett is the king, how PATHETIC. City manager Couch makes a weak effort to dispute Steve's comments since Steve had documentation on everything he was stating. Go to view it, it is enlighten and entertaining. I seen it on a message board which I was not able to download it, but I believe all city council meetings can be located on www.okc.gov Enjoy

Good grief. Are all these guys coming back to haunt us? Speaking of no credibility. If all you No for MAPS people can come up with to support your cause are Councilman Walters, Wanda Jo Stapleton and Steve Hunt, I worry about your concept of intelligence and rationality. There's only one person missing from this little group, and I'm sure he'll pop up one of these days with his figures about how much MAPS is costing all of us per year (multipled by a factor of 10).

Did he bring his bong to the meeting?

Gee, sorry. I believe the more accurate term is hookah and I'm sure it was "tobacco."

Good grief. Are all these guys coming back to haunt us? Speaking of no credibility. If all you No for MAPS people can come up with to support your cause are Councilman Walters, Wanda Jo Stapleton and Steve Hunt, I worry about your concept of intelligence and rationality. There's only one person missing from this little group, and I'm sure he'll pop up one of these days with his figures about how much MAPS is costing all of us per year (multipled by a factor of 10).

Good luck with your honest co- treasurer Humphreys. Take time to look back into his past shaky dealings, you might be suprised.

sorry here is the link YouTube - Non for or against advocation of the ridiculous MAPS3 garbage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tbuMZHw1Y)

Is this the same Steve Hunt who was vocal in his opposition to the March 4 Ford Center vote?

No I think this is a different guy... that dude lives in Beirut now I am pretty sure, working for some construction company... ch 9 did a big story about it all not too long ago.

Looks like the same guy:

Today is “Belittle Steve Hunt and Say He Works at Taco Bell Day” at The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2009/03/31/steve-hunt-doesnt-mind/)

Hilarious! Folks that do that site seem like yes voters to me. Those folks and the big-box evangelical Christians.

I think there will be a lot of Democrats voting yes, and most of them aren't big box evangelical Christians. That's why I've said it's not a good idea to irritate the people who will be voting YES for MAPS. They're probably the most supportive of the unions of any political group in Oklahoma City, up to this point. The unions may need them at some point in time. The Mark Shannons and Steve Hunts:wink: of the world will probably be lobbying against increased funding for policemen and firemen when the time comes.

Yes I agree that Democrats will support it. Not surprising. Kind of like when Alan Greensapan referred to Clinton as "The best Republican I ever worked for."

Curious... do you have the data to back this up? Are you stating the statistic in pure numbers or City employees per capita?

Will a quote from the City manager do? In the City's budget report for FY 2008 (can download from the OKC.gov):


“Although the number of City staff has increased in the past few years, we are still operating BELOW 1994 STAFFING LEVELS.”

Notice the date there, we are still operating with the same staffing level as at the beginning of the original MAPS.

But really, Larry OKC, what does this have to do with MAPS? Funding and staffing levels for fire and police are administrative matters to take up with the City Manager, the Mayor and The City Council. It doesn't have anything to do with these projects. You're logic is shooting yourself in the foot because if, as has happened with the previous MAPS projects, they result in increased tourism, convensions and tax revenue, there will be more funding for police and fire. Go against MAPS and you very possibly have the same or less revenue and less liklihood for additional funding.

But really, Larry OKC, what does this have to do with MAPS? Funding and staffing levels for fire and police are administrative matters to take up with the City Manager, the Mayor and The City Council. It doesn't have anything to do with these projects.
Someone asked for info and I supplied. I agree that the fire & police staffing issues shouldn't really be tied into MAPS. Although I haven't really taken sides in the debate, a lot of what the F/P side have been saying is supported by the facts. Or at least the stuff I have run across. I agree with the ones that have said that you shouldn't tie manpower $$$ with a temporary tax, because once the temporary tax goes away, so does the funding for those positions. If they do somehow tie in the Use Funds (only for the 1st 2 of 7.75 years) that only helps for those 2 years. Reportedly it was going to add 20 people which is a net total of zero added since layoffs are coming. Even if the 20 is a net gain, from what I have read, that will leave us "only" 180 below what the staffing levels are supposed to be.

You're logic is shooting yourself in the foot because if, as has happened with the previous MAPS projects, they result in increased tourism, convensions and tax revenue, there will be more funding for police and fire. Go against MAPS and you very possibly have the same or less revenue and less liklihood for additional funding.
Not sure which logic you are talking about. Part of their point is that tax revenue has indeed gone up since MAPS. Have gone from a $66M/year average w/MAPS to a projected $100M/year w/MAPS 3. They were promised staffing issues would be resolved with that increased tax base/revenue etc (just as they are promising will happen with MAPS 3). Problem is, they never followed through on those promises.

If someone was less than truthful before, and they are making the same claims now, why would you believe them?

Where has all the increased revenue gone? I did some research (from the City's yearly budget reports), and based on a very surface level examination, it appears that we are only keeping up with increases in salaries, benefits, fuel expenses etc. There was one of the reports where the City Manager said basically that (sorry, don't have the exact quote handy)

But really, Larry OKC, what does this have to do with MAPS? Funding and staffing levels for fire and police are administrative matters to take up with the City Manager, the Mayor and The City Council. It doesn't have anything to do with these projects. You're logic is shooting yourself in the foot because if, as has happened with the previous MAPS projects, they result in increased tourism, convensions and tax revenue, there will be more funding for police and fire. Go against MAPS and you very possibly have the same or less revenue and less liklihood for additional funding.

Mug, with all do respect you've missed the point. At the same time that the original MAPS has been pumping more money into the city through "increased tourism,conventions and tax revenue" all the city departments have been asked to cut their budgets on a yearly basis. Why should we think this will change with this MAPS? His logic isn't shooting him in the foot. His logic is backed by historical facts. You chose to believe the same people who have been requesting these cuts while touting Maps as a huge windfall to the city. IMO they have proven themeselves not to be truthful or trustworthy.

These matters have been brought to the attention of all the people you mentioned for years on end. Their reaction has been to ignore and dismiss the people bringing it to them. If nothing else is being accomplished, I think they're having a hard time ignoring or dismissing them now.

Mug, with all do respect you've missed the point. At the same time that the original MAPS has been pumping more money into the city through "increased tourism,conventions and tax revenue" all the city departments have been asked to cut their budgets on a yearly basis. Why should we think this will change with this MAPS? His logic isn't shooting him in the foot. His logic is backed by historical facts. You chose to believe the same people who have been requesting these cuts while touting Maps as a huge windfall to the city. IMO they have proven themeselves not to be truthful or trustworthy.

These matters have been brought to the attention of all the people you mentioned for years on end. Their reaction has been to ignore and dismiss the people bringing it to them. If nothing else is being accomplished, I think they're having a hard time ignoring or dismissing them now.

I understand what you are saying but the reason departments have been asked to cut their budgets is because we are in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and there isn't a major city in the country that doesn't have some significant budget problems.

If these things have been brought to the attention of all the people I mentioned for "years on end" then the majority of the people in OKC apparently don't feel there is as much of a problem as you do. I was born and raised here, left and came back, but after coming back, I don't see any more problems now than when I left 20+ years ago.

MAPS3 will cost each of us, what, maybe $100 - $200 a year? For what we get, its a small investment. What did a policeman or a fireman cost in 1995 vs. what they cost today in total pay (cash + benefits + pension, etc). With new stations, equipment and efficiencies, we may not need the same number that we did before.

I'm open to the idea of more of each but using MAPS3 as leverage isn't the way to go. They are two separate issues.

Great MAPS 3 debate


...As the the convention center, I disagree. I am persuaded that a convention center can and does generate lots of money to the local economy. The only questions are (1) how much, and (2) is the amount worth the expense to put the city in a position to garner much larger conventions than we can presently attract? With a convention center smaller than Tulsa and Wichita, we are presumably missing out on convention revenue. That fact doesn't answer #2, but I'd suppose it's answer to be "yes."

I was of the opinion, (contrary to the low polling of the Convention Center), that anything that brings in NEW money into the economy is a GOOD thing, but at what cost (is the amount worth the expense). Here is some info, hope it helps...

The answer to #1 may be in the Chamber's Convention Study:


"In recent years, the Cox Center has been responsible for generating an estimated average of $592,000 annually in city sales tax receipts..."

So for the $60M in Myriad/Cox upgrades under MAPS 1, we are getting $592K per/year directly. To keep the math simple, presume that none of those tax $$$ would have existed without the upgrades. The $60M was completed 10 years ago in 1999. Quick and dirty math indicates a total of 101 years to for those two numbers to equal out. If the economic impact multiplier is used the number drops but still takes a long time. Rule of thumb says economic impact is the amount of NEW money being spent multiplied by 6 or 7 times (which most of the C.C. business is NEW money and lets presume that it is 100% NEW money). It brings it down to just under 15 years? The Cox will have JUST started paying for itself a few years before it is replaced and we start the cycle all over again.

For the new C.C.:


"It is estimated that the operations of a new convention center could increase annual tax collections in these specific areas to approximately $1.6 million in city sales tax receipts..."
(That's 2.7 times what we get with the Cox, sounds great but when you include the additional cost, not so much).

#2. So, how many years before the new C.C. cost/revenue numbers meet? Quick and dirty math indicates it will be 175 years. Even if talking total economic impact, presuming the full 7 times, that decreases the 175 years down to 25 years? (This is just for the Phase 1 under MAPS 3, when you add in the additional cost for Phase 2 in MAPS 4 or whatever, the time gets extended even further).

Realize there are other things to consider too.

Is the $600K (to round off) of tax receipts directly from rentals of the Cox Facilities or does that include the directly-related receipts from Hotel/Motel taxes, rental car taxes, sales taxes from shopping and restaurants, etc?

I doubt that, with the exception of a very few places like Vegas or Miami, that a convention center ever directly pays for itself. Its the residuals and intangibles that it brings. But also consider that the Cox Center space is so limited that it could possibly bring in far more if there were significantly more space. Visitors judge a city on the way its facilities look and "feel." The Cox Center is undeniably 70's concrete architecture and feels old. The renovation helped but that will only last the few years until a new facility can be built. On another thread I posted a link to the convention facility I saw in Omaha, NE (a city about half the size of OKC).

Qwest Center - Home (http://www.qwestcenter.com/)

If you were deciding to bring your convention to OKC Cox Center or the Qwest Center in Omaha, which would impress you more?

[QUOTE=mugofbeer;272547]I understand what you are saying but the reason departments have been asked to cut their budgets is because we are in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and there isn't a major city in the country that doesn't have some significant budget problems."

Friend, when do you think contract negotiations begin? When negotiations began for this year, OKC was "recession proof" thanks to Mick's genius and then the city decided to negotiate in bad faith. Mick's money wants MAPSIII to pass recession be doomed and so pulled by his marionet, he publicly pushes for it. Same day all city departments are asked to cut 2% from their budgets, likely another 3% for the upcoming fiscal year. Mick then dances in to say that he can save all the heartburn if public safety will just submit to his use tax proposal that will provide for a limited (2 year) time. Mick still claims that this is a Public Safety ploy for money. It isn't. Exactly who is using MIII as leverage to promote their own agenda?