Dunno Andy. You first said the tax went into effect in 2002. Then you said it was 2007. Now you're making claims about when and how much money was received.

I don't actually know what is true here... It's just that what you're saying doesn't quite compute.OK Mid you win. But your smarter than that.

First MAPS won't cost everyone an average $930 a year that's ridiculous. More like $400 for a family of four, but it's not AN INCREASE in the first place so there's "0" extra. Not $930...

Not sure about the $930 part but since these were numbers prepared for the City...

But to answer the bolded part, it is a NEW tax and therefore a tax increase. The City's MAPS 3 Survey site explained it pretty well (replace any mention of MAPS for Kids with the Ford tax and adjust the dates)

MAPS 3 | OKlahoma City (http://www.maps3.org/q_and_a.html)


How much would a MAPS 3 sales tax increase the current sales tax rate in Oklahoma City?
It would not increase the rate from where it currently stands, but the MAPS for Kids one-cent sales tax will end at the end of 2008. At that time, the sales tax rate in Oklahoma City will decrease by one cent on every dollar. Approval of a one-cent MAPS 3 sales tax would return the sales tax rate to the level it is at currently.

Why do the people vote?
All new sales tax increases must be approved by the people. Though a MAPS 3 sales tax would not increase the sales tax rate from where it is today, the one-cent MAPS for Kids sales tax is temporary, and will expire at the end of 2008. A MAPS 3 sales tax would be a new tax. It would also be temporary.

The City modified it somewhat on the current MAPS 3 site:

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/QA.html)


How much would a MAPS sales tax increase the current sales tax rate in Oklahoma City?
It would not increase the rate from where it currently stands.

Why do the people vote on tax initiatives?
All new sales taxes must be approved by the people. Though this sales tax will not increase the sales tax rate in Oklahoma City, the current sports facilities sales tax is temporary (just as MAPS will be) and expires at the end of March, 2010.

The modified answer doesn't seem to be all that different but they pretty much left out the part about the tax going down and then back up again. Wonder why that is?

The Ford tax expires March 31 (at midnight). The MAPS 3 tax will take effect at 12:00 am, April 1. This makes it look like nothing has changed...the rate is the same (no increase). What would make it obvious to everyone that it is a tax increase, if there was even one day between the two taxes (going back to the original language on the Survey site).

March 31 (8.375%)
April 1 (7.375%) as someone pointed out this would be a 12% DROP in the sales tax rate
April 2 (8.375%) if allowed to drop, then raised back up again, this would be a 13.5% INCREASE.

Percentages can be interesting things. Notice to get the tax rate back up to the same 8.375% there is a net difference of 1.5% between the drop and the increase (still only a penny either way).

This is why they can not allow any gap to happen between the two temporary taxes. Obvious tax increases are a harder sell to the voters. Personally think this is what they really mean by "continuing the momentum" (it is the tax momentum that they don't want stopped).



Second of all this isn't a 3rd convention center, since when did the Ford become a convention center?? ...

Can understand where the confusion might be regarding the Ford as being a Convention Center. The original MAPS ballot labels it that way and the Mayor even mentioned it at one point during the Ford tax vote.

Ballot text provided courtesy of Doug on the 1st page of the "New info on MAPS 3" thread

From the 1993 MAPS Ballot (Ordinance 20,045):


Subsection
(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

and the Mayor:
(Greater Oklahoma City Chamber - Official Home Page (http://www.okcchamber.com/page.asp?atomid=1777) )

“This investment will not only help us attract our own NBA franchise, but also will make us more desirable for bigger and better concerts, special events and conventions.”

So I can understand where some have said that this will be OKC's third convention center:
1. Cox CONVENTION Center,
2. Ford (see above) and
3. New MAPS 3 convention center


3rd of all the downtown park is not a request by Devon Energy, that is the Myriad Garden renovations, which Devon is paying for themselves. ...

I haven't read anything that supports the MAPS 3 Park/Devon request either. But the bolded part? Not quite. It is true that Devon is not using the money to be put back into the Devon campus, Devon isn't paying for the M.G. renovations either. The City is paying for the improvements, Devon is just loaning the $95M to the City upfront, to be paid back (with interest). It is my understanding that TIF money is also borrowed money (paid back with anticipated future increases in the property taxes in the TIF district). So my question is, how many times are we borrowing and paying back this money?

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-myriad-gardens-to-receive-makeover/article/3407521?custom_click=pod_lead_business)
Oklahoma City's Myriad Gardens to receive makeover


...With construction of the new headquarters set at $750 million, Nichols surprised many downtown observers by asking that the tax increment financing (TIF) proceeds from the project not be used for amenities for the corporate campus, but rather to improve the surrounding downtown neighborhood.
The Myriad Gardens is the biggest single beneficiary of the TIF, with $35 million dedicated to making it a people place by adding amenities requested by residents. ...

By STEVE LACKMEYER NewsOK.com
Devon lends money for OKC downtown plan (9/24/2009)


OKLAHOMA CITY — Devon Energy Corp. is extending a $95 million line of credit to Oklahoma City to expedite completion of an ambitious downtown makeover being launched in conjunction with construction of a new corporate headquarters.

Devon is set to host a groundbreaking celebration Oct. 6 for its $750 million, 50-story tower to be built across from the Myriad Gardens. A new, $115 million tax-increment financing district was set up at Devon's request to fund a makeover of downtown streets and parks. ...

Not sure about the $930 part but since these were numbers prepared for the City... But to answer the bolded part, it is a NEW tax and therefore a tax increase. The City's MAPS 3 Survey site explained it pretty well (replace any mention of MAPS for Kids with the Ford tax and adjust the dates)

This is why they can not allow any gap to happen between the two temporary taxes. Obvious tax increases are a harder sell to the voters. Personally think this is what they really mean by "continuing the momentum" (it is the tax momentum that they don't want stopped).

Larry, I've always understood your point regarding whether the tax would increase or not, but isn't this really semantics? To the voter, there would be no discernable change in the tax rate, were the MAPS tax not allowed to expire. I suspect what the city is trying to get across to the voter is that if the MAPS tax continues, their sales tax will be no higher than it is right now. Technically, both sides are correct on this issue, I believe. So, one slightly disingenuous statement probably cancels out the other.


Can understand where the confusion might be regarding the Ford as being a Convention Center. The original MAPS ballot labels it that way and the Mayor even mentioned it at one point during the Ford tax vote.

So I can understand where some have said that this will be OKC's third convention center:
1. Cox CONVENTION Center,
2. Ford (see above) and
3. New MAPS 3 convention center

Now, we all know that the Ford Center is not a convention center in its own right, regardless of what it has been called. I would assume that, with a large convention, the space could be used as an adjunct to another convention center, so one could presumably consider it additional space, not a freestanding center. But, the inaccuracy doesn't really even relate to the Ford Center, as, once the new convention center is constructed, the Cox Convention Center will presumably cease to exist as one, leaving us with one and overflow space again, rather than 3 convention centers. The number 3 is an incorrect one, regardless of what the Ford Center is or isn't.


I haven't read anything that supports the MAPS 3 Park/Devon request either. But the bolded part? Not quite. It is true that Devon is not using the money to be put back into the Devon campus, Devon isn't paying for the M.G. renovations either. The City is paying for the improvements, Devon is just loaning the $95M to the City upfront, to be paid back (with interest). It is my understanding that TIF money is also borrowed money (paid back with anticipated future increases in the property taxes in the TIF district).

And again, the inaccuracy in the MAPS opposition's point is not who is paying for the Myriad Gardens makeover, but rather that Larry Nichols has requested the 70 acre park. The opposition is again either completely uneducated about the plans for MAPS (versus the Myriad Gardens), do not know their city geography or are deliberately attempting to mislead the voters. This isn't just about semantics.

This thread reminds me of the Myers-Briggs perceiving dichotomy. On one hand are the (S) sensing who cannot see anything until the details are perfect. On the other the (N) intuitive who stops at the big picture.

Or none of us have made it past Erickson's first stage of trust versus mistrust!

You're right, though, flinty, in that different personality types perceive things differently. Different personality types react to things differently, and that's as much what makes us Republicans or Democrats, more willing to spend money on others, more interested in keeping what we've made, more of a global versus local thinker and on and on. Our individual personality makes it impossible for many of us to perceive the other person's point of view, or even if we can perceive it, to understand where they're coming from. So, we will continue to debate, anytime there's a controversial issue and shake our heads at the other person's point of view, which is as much a part of what makes him or her unique as ours is.

that's as much what makes us Republicans or Democrats, more willing to spend money on others, more interested in keeping what we've made, more of a global versus local thinker and on and on.
I'd be careful about knowing who is Republican or Democrat by their stance on this issue. I've been a little stunned by the side some claim to be on by this issue. It's funny the ones at the top of this argument claim to be republican. Admonishing the Government Health Plan and "big government" in general, but then push THIS tax so relentlessly. Some personal gain in it for them maybe?

So, we will continue to debate, anytime there's a controversial issue and shake our heads at the other person's point of view, which is as much a part of what makes him or her unique as ours is.
Agreed. I can assure you with a few changes (ballot language), shorter time frame, a couple of less projects, addressed some obvious NEEDS of the city first, and a little later proposal (when revenues start to come back up) and you might be surprised how much support THIS MAPS would have gotten.

I will say after looking at this entire deal a little more closely and following the "money trail" it's clear why this is being pushed so hard. When you've gotten your hand in so much Private Business associated with the city:bright_id. I think it's a lot harder to do what's best for the city. That's what's happening and that's what I have a problem with now also.

I'd be careful about knowing who is Republican or Democrat by their stance on this issue. I've been a little stunned by the side some claim to be on by this issue. It's funny the ones at the top of this argument claim to be republican. Admonishing the Government Health Plan and "big government" in general, but then push THIS tax so relentlessly. Some personal gain in it for them maybe?

I didn't say one could tell who is Republican and Democrat from their stance on MAPS. In fact, the most interesting thing is that it really transcends politics for many people. I suspect more people on this forum are pro MAPS than anti MAPS, and you'd see a wide range of political affiliations if we all gave ours. And yet, I also suspect that virtually none of us will receive any personal gain from it. I heard the same thing with the MAPS tax for the Ford Center, that it was a "Maps for millionaires" and yet many more people voted for it than against it, and those of us who did are going to have a great time in the Ford Center tonight (on ESPN!) despite not making a penny from MAPS. Getting an NBA team is one of the best things that's happened to Oklahoma City in a long time, IMO, and we as voters had something to do with that. A big thanks to Clay Bennett et al for that as well.


I will say after looking at this entire deal a little more closely and following the "money trail" it's clear why this is being pushed so hard. When you've gotten your hand in so much Private Business associated with the city, I think it's a lot harder to do what's best for the city. That's what's happening and that's what I have a problem with now also.

So, you've found the money trail? Care to elaborate? And, many of us would argue that our city leaders do care about what's best for the city. MAPS is the single greatest thing I've seen in this city since I've moved here. It's transformed this city, and by trying to continue doing so, I have to thank our city leaders for their vision. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what we would have without it by a long shot.

Not sure about the $930 part but since these were numbers prepared for the City...

But to answer the bolded part, it is a NEW tax and therefore a tax increase. The City's MAPS 3 Survey site explained it pretty well (replace any mention of MAPS for Kids with the Ford tax and adjust the dates)

MAPS 3 | OKlahoma City (http://www.maps3.org/q_and_a.html)



The City modified it somewhat on the current MAPS 3 site:

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/QA.html)



The modified answer doesn't seem to be all that different but they pretty much left out the part about the tax going down and then back up again. Wonder why that is?

The Ford tax expires March 31 (at midnight). The MAPS 3 tax will take effect at 12:00 am, April 1. This makes it look like nothing has changed...the rate is the same (no increase). What would make it obvious to everyone that it is a tax increase, if there was even one day between the two taxes (going back to the original language on the Survey site).

March 31 (8.375%)
April 1 (7.375%) as someone pointed out this would be a 12% DROP in the sales tax rate
April 2 (8.375%) if allowed to drop, then raised back up again, this would be a 13.5% INCREASE.

Percentages can be interesting things. Notice to get the tax rate back up to the same 8.375% there is a net difference of 1.5% between the drop and the increase (still only a penny either way).

This is why they can not allow any gap to happen between the two temporary taxes. Obvious tax increases are a harder sell to the voters. Personally think this is what they really mean by "continuing the momentum" (it is the tax momentum that they don't want stopped).

Well you're wrong there. "Continuing the momentum" means escaping the recession, continuing to rank at the top of every list of rankings that are put out, and competing for jobs in a tough economy. That's what it's all about.

Your point on the tax is utter semantics. You know that there is no tax increase by continuing a tax that we have paid since 1993. If you want to argue semantics, let's talk about the 2% pay cut that the police and fire unions are balking about. The reality is that the city has suggested public safety bypass their 2% RAISE and not get their RAISE this year. ALL other city employees have already been told they won't get their RAISE this year, and if the city turns around and gives cops a 2% RAISE when nobody else gets a 2% RAISE that's unfair.

There's another funny thing about percentages, if you wanna argue semantics (not that public safety still has anything to do with MAPS).



Can understand where the confusion might be regarding the Ford as being a Convention Center. The original MAPS ballot labels it that way and the Mayor even mentioned it at one point during the Ford tax vote.

Ballot text provided courtesy of Doug on the 1st page of the "New info on MAPS 3" thread

From the 1993 MAPS Ballot (Ordinance 20,045):



and the Mayor:
(Greater Oklahoma City Chamber - Official Home Page (http://www.okcchamber.com/page.asp?atomid=1777) )


So I can understand where some have said that this will be OKC's third convention center:
1. Cox CONVENTION Center,
2. Ford (see above) and
3. New MAPS 3 convention center


Anybody who has ever referred to the Ford Center is a highly ig'nant individual and that's all there is to that.



I haven't read anything that supports the MAPS 3 Park/Devon request either. But the bolded part? Not quite. It is true that Devon is not using the money to be put back into the Devon campus, Devon isn't paying for the M.G. renovations either. The City is paying for the improvements, Devon is just loaning the $95M to the City upfront, to be paid back (with interest). It is my understanding that TIF money is also borrowed money (paid back with anticipated future increases in the property taxes in the TIF district). So my question is, how many times are we borrowing and paying back this money?

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-myriad-gardens-to-receive-makeover/article/3407521?custom_click=pod_lead_business)
Oklahoma City's Myriad Gardens to receive makeover



By STEVE LACKMEYER NewsOK.com
Devon lends money for OKC downtown plan (9/24/2009)[/QUOTE]

The money that is being used to completely renovate the Myriad Gardens and the surrounding downtown streets is coming from the TIF district around the Devon Tower project. Typically when a $750 million skyscraper is built the TIF around it goes to utilities for such a large project, but instead Devon is not taking that money and has instead requested that it be put back into the downtown community to make various improvements. The city has loaned the City the TIF money upfront in order to get the improvements made before the tower is finished rather than several years after the TIF is collecting property tax from the tower.

So yes, Devon has funded the Myriad renovations as well as the downtown streetscape projects. And then for the opposition to confuse this with a Devon demand for a downtown park isn't just insulting to Devon (whose generosity is completely renovating the Myriad gardens and every downtown street) but it's also incredibly uneducated. What more do you expect from the opposition, besides incredibly uneducated conclusions and offensive remarks against downtown leaders?

I'd be careful about knowing who is Republican or Democrat by their stance on this issue. I've been a little stunned by the side some claim to be on by this issue. It's funny the ones at the top of this argument claim to be republican. Admonishing the Government Health Plan and "big government" in general, but then push THIS tax so relentlessly. Some personal gain in it for them maybe?

Well the idea is that MAPS has always been about investing in the community to attract new businesses to OKC. It's always been about making OKC the kind of city that needs less welfare, has less crime, and all that stuff. The direct result of MAPS isn't "less crime" or "better demographics" or "better education" (except with MAPS for Kids) but rather the direct result has always been MORE JOBS.

You have to take a look at how we got to where we enacted MAPS in 1993. We wanted to give corporations large amounts of CASH to come to OKC, corporate welfare at its most disgusting level. But not even that would work because the corporations eliminated OKC, saying "no one would want to live here." And it was true. So instead of giving these companies incentives to chose OKC we stopped doing that and decided to invest IN OKC instead. Therefor corporations don't get the benefits of our economic development, instead the PEOPLE will always get the benefits of our economic development. We created a city that people would want to live in so that we could improve our economy that way, and it worked. Now the work is hardly complete as cities are constantly evolving and we must keep up.

It's always been a very Republican concept to invest in the economy. Democrats would typically argue that these amenities aren't needed and they'd rather a MAPS tax, and all other taxes, go towards schools, healthcare, and welfare. Handouts to the poor. Republicans would rather use public resources to invest in the economy and get a greater return for a larger number of people, essentially, everybody with the initiative to go and participate in an improved economy (fill out a job application basically) will be the benefactors of the MAPS program.

Why don't you take that for "big government" and shove it. If you want to divide people on Republican/Democrat issues, go to California or some place, or just go home and keep the TV tuned to FOX News and never leave your house, because in the real world you actually have to move beyond dividing people as Republicans and Democrats. The best thing about OKC is that our mayoral elections are nonpartisan, which allows us to move past the conservative and liberal labels in CITY politics.

Furthermore, why do conservatives hate big government? Are conservatives really on a crusade to end big government, or just big government that they dislike? I have never once heard a "real conservative" argue over the defense budget and the military industrial complex. That's the biggest government that there is. Where are the budget hawks on that? Furthermore, I would argue that "big government" is just rhetoric that means "I don't want lots of money going towards liberal causes."

When I think of "big government" I immediately think of my disdain for the federal government. I dislike pretty much everything about the federal government, in fact, I often wish Oklahoma would join Texas and that the two states would just secede from the Union and let the rest of America go to hell.

We have this thing called the 10th Amendment that leaves powers to more local forms of government, and to this day, I would argue that while the federal government is ridiculously and hopelessly mired in crap, there's one level of government that is still working for the people it claims to represent: the local level. Here in OKC at least, the local level has been very accountable and responsive to the people, which is why OKC has made so much progress. OKC is actually viewed by the outside world as a "progressive city" because of how much we've invested in economic development, and how successful it's been. If we turn down MAPS 3 that changes.

So, you've found the money trail? Care to elaborate? And, many of us would argue that our city leaders do care about what's best for the city. MAPS is the single greatest thing I've seen in this city since I've moved here. It's transformed this city, and by trying to continue doing so, I have to thank our city leaders for their vision. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what we would have without it by a long shot.
Cornett Blogs (http://markshannon.com/CORNETT.htm)
Right there in black and white..

Well you're wrong there. "Continuing the momentum" means escaping the recession, continuing to rank at the top of every list of rankings that are put out, and competing for jobs in a tough economy. That's what it's all about.
What can you guarantee us if we pass MAPS3? We aren't escaping the recession jack? We are on the tail end of it and who know how much worse it's going to get. You sure don't. MAPS3 is going to stop the recession? Wake up!

The reality is that the city has suggested public safety bypass their 2% RAISE and not get their RAISE this year.
That's a LIE! Get your facts strait before you spew at the mouth! You sound like the Mayor's "boy". You want dig into the Chambers numbers and blah blah blah. Go ahead, but start spouting things that aren't true and I'll call you on it.

If you want to argue semantics, let's talk about the 2% pay cut that the police and fire unions are balking about.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 2% cut wasn't PAY! It was a BUDGET cut. Across the board for each division. Police, Fire, and City Employee's departments. The city is BROKE. They will lay off personnel. Personnel that is already working short handed. They are going to send them home. They can't pay their bills in the "BIG LEAGUE" city. They can't fund the short staffed positions they have now, so here's an idea. Let's build a park and make that the focus of our City! I quit reading the rest, because your not working with facts. Just your "hot air".

Cornett Blogs (http://markshannon.com/CORNETT.htm)
Right there in black and white..

Huh? Sorry, care to relate that to MAPS? Ackerman-McQueen is an advertising agency, not a developer. Again, Mark Shannon is not a reliable source. He's a radio talk show host without a college degree. He's not an economist, political scientist, lawyer or anything of the sort. I see black and white, but it's abstract art.

What can you guarantee us if we pass MAPS3? We aren't escaping the recession jack? We are on the tail end of it and who know how much worse it's going to get. You sure don't. MAPS3 is going to stop the recession? Wake up!

That's a LIE! Get your facts strait before you spew at the mouth! You sound like the Mayor's "boy". You want dig into the Chambers numbers and blah blah blah. Go ahead, but start spouting things that aren't true and I'll call you on it.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 2% cut wasn't PAY! It was a BUDGET cut. Across the board for each division. Police, Fire, and City Employee's departments. The city is BROKE. They will lay off personnel. Personnel that is already working short handed. They are going to send them home. They can't pay their bills in the "BIG LEAGUE" city. They can't fund the short staffed positions they have now, so here's an idea. Let's build a park and make that the focus of our City! I quit reading the rest, because your not working with facts. Just your "hot air".

Has anyone thought that there may be other reasons why sales tax collections in OKC have been down the last 9 months or so other than a bad economy. We are supposed to be the number 1 most recession proof city in the United States if I am not mistaken. I wonder how much of an increase in tax revenue that Moore, Norman, and MWC have had in the last year or so. I wonder if it is a significant enough increase to offset our decrease. Just something to think about....Thought I might bring this over from the I-40 and Council thread, page 8. I hope that it doesnt offend anyone.

What can you guarantee us if we pass MAPS3? We aren't escaping the recession jack? We are on the tail end of it and who know how much worse it's going to get. You sure don't. MAPS3 is going to stop the recession? Wake up!

That's a LIE! Get your facts strait before you spew at the mouth! You sound like the Mayor's "boy". You want dig into the Chambers numbers and blah blah blah. Go ahead, but start spouting things that aren't true and I'll call you on it.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 2% cut wasn't PAY! It was a BUDGET cut. Across the board for each division. Police, Fire, and City Employee's departments. The city is BROKE. They will lay off personnel. Personnel that is already working short handed. They are going to send them home. They can't pay their bills in the "BIG LEAGUE" city. They can't fund the short staffed positions they have now, so here's an idea. Let's build a park and make that the focus of our City! I quit reading the rest, because your not working with facts. Just your "hot air".iron76hd your right. You know Spartan really is a pretty sharp kid, but he had his facts all screwed up regarding the 2% raise v budget cut issue. Hopefully, at least on this issue he will accept the truth.

...We are supposed to be the number 1 most recession proof city in the United States if I am not mistaken. I wonder how much of an increase in tax revenue that Moore, Norman, and MWC have had in the last year or so. ...

The "most recession proof" label was for Cities of similar characteristics (population mainly, I think). And thank you for including the "most" as many leave that out. It's a relative thing...compared to many other cities in the US, we are coming up roses.

Not sure if the other cities you mentioned are in the group or not (don't have those articles bookmarked), but there were some in the metro area that have actually seen sales tax increases (without any change to their tax rates) during the same time that OKC has been having double digit shortfalls.

Well you're wrong there. "Continuing the momentum" means escaping the recession, continuing to rank at the top of every list of rankings that are put out, and competing for jobs in a tough economy. That's what it's all about.

I agree that MAPS 3 would be a significant "booster shot" if you will, regarding momentum. Here is a quote by the Chamber's Mr. Williams:

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/maps-3-proposal-generates-debate/article/3420159?custom_click=lead_story_title)


MAPS 3 proposal generates debate (Oklahoman, 11/25/09)

Roy Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, said Oklahoma City’s momentum isn’t about continuing a tax; it is about continuing to improve the city through initiatives like MAPS that have earned the city accolades in national publications such as Forbes, BusinessWeek and others.

“That kind of momentum comes along once in a lifetime. That’s the kind of momentum that is taking place in Oklahoma City and is being recognized nationally and internationally,” Williams said. “Every city in the United States is envious of what is going on in Oklahoma City right now, and that is the kind of momentum we are looking at continuing.”

The two are intertwined since they are talking about paying for this momentum with the tax. If it wasn’t about the tax, there wouldn’t be a need for the election. For him to say this isn’t about “continuing a tax” simply defies explanation.



Your point on the tax is utter semantics. You know that there is no tax increase by continuing a tax that we have paid since 1993.

I agree it is semantics, and it is a game that the City is playing in trying to spin a tax increase as anything but. The bolded part is factually incorrect. The 1 penny sales tax does NOT go all the way back to 1993 (MAPS 1). I thought that too but ran across info that showed that there was a 2 1/2 year gap between MAPS and MAPS for Kids. There was a 3/4 cent tax that lasted about that length, but it didn't start and stop neatly. There was about a 3 month gap on the MAPS side and a 3 month overlap on the MAPS for Kids side.

This was alluded to in the same article as Mr. William's quote:


In fact, the MAPS penny sales tax has expired before. There was no MAPS sales tax between July 1999, when the first MAPS tax expired, and January 2002, when the MAPS For Kids tax began, according to city records.


...not that public safety still has anything to do with MAPS...

I agree. Did I say anywhere that it did?


Anybody who has ever referred to the Ford Center is a highly ig'nant individual and that's all there is to that.

I agree. The Mayor has pointed out the Cox has "Convention Center" in it's name (this happened when the Myriad got renamed the Cox Convention Center), he said we don't really have a convention center but a sports arena with some meeting rooms added to it. I don't really see the Ford as being a C.C. either but that isn't what the 1993 MAPS ballot states and the Mayor too (see below). So then, are you saying that the good folks at the City (that created the MAPS ballot) and the Mayor are "highly ig'nant"?

I'm not saying that the Cox and Ford are Convention Centers but I can certainly see where the 3 convention centers thing comes from.



The money that is being used to completely renovate the Myriad Gardens and the surrounding downtown streets is coming from the TIF district around the Devon Tower project. Typically when a $750 million skyscraper is built the TIF around it goes to utilities for such a large project, but instead Devon is not taking that money and has instead requested that it be put back into the downtown community to make various improvements. The city has loaned the City the TIF money upfront in order to get the improvements made before the tower is finished rather than several years after the TIF is collecting property tax from the tower.

So yes, Devon has funded the Myriad renovations as well as the downtown streetscape projects. And then for the opposition to confuse this with a Devon demand for a downtown park isn't just insulting to Devon (whose generosity is completely renovating the Myriad gardens and every downtown street) but it's also incredibly uneducated. What more do you expect from the opposition, besides incredibly uneducated conclusions and offensive remarks against downtown leaders?

Looks like we are in agreement now, if by "Devon has funded" you mean it is basically acting like a bank or a finance company. They are simply providing a loan (but this is different from your original statement).


3rd of all the downtown park is not a request by Devon Energy, that is the Myriad Garden renovations, which Devon is paying for themselves. ...

Larry, I've always understood your point regarding whether the tax would increase or not, but isn't this really semantics? To the voter, there would be no discernable change in the tax rate, were the MAPS tax not allowed to expire. I suspect what the city is trying to get across to the voter is that if the MAPS tax continues, their sales tax will be no higher than it is right now. Technically, both sides are correct on this issue, I believe. So, one slightly disingenuous statement probably cancels out the other.

A agree, it is semantics and the City is very good at it (see the same misleading claim in previous elections). As long as the spin continues to be effective, they will use it whenever they can.

Haven't you wondered that if any of this was on a "needs" basis (rather than "wouldn't it be nice") that they are waiting until now to consider this? By that, why the precise and exact timing, where the tax doesn't take effect until after the Ford tax expires (no overlap which would obviously be a tax increase). And they don't allow even one day to pass where the tax would drop and it would be obvious that it would be a tax increase. Just a coincidence? LOL

I do have to appreciate how exacting City leadership is in their planning. They actually have it down to the day and the hour when the "emergency" is going to begin and end (before it is replaced by yet another "emergency" with MAPS 4). The emergency apparently begins immediately upon passage, yet they aren't going to start collecting the tax to do anything about the emergency until nearly 4 months later. One would thnk if it was a true emergency, they (1) wouldn't have waited the couple of months to put it to a vote and then (2) wait nearly 4 months before collecting the tax. Oh but that's right, if the taxes overlapped, it would be an obvious tax increase...LOL

From the MAPS 3 Ordinance:


SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTIONS I AND 2; APPROVAL BY CITY VOTERS REQUIRED. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance shall become effective from and after 12:00 am. on the 1st day of April, 2010, but only if this Ordinance is approved prior to said date by a majority vote of the qualified, registered voters of The City of Oklahoma City voting on such question at a special election to be called for that purpose by the City Council of the City and to be held within the City as provided by law; provided, if this Ordinance is not so approved by City voters prior to 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2010, then the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 hereof shall become null and void and of no force and effect whatever.

SECTION 4. EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it being immediately necessary for the preservation of the peace, health, safety and public good of The City of Oklahoma City and the inhabitants thereof that the provisions of this ordinance be put into full force and effect, an emergency is hereby declared to exist by reason whereof this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the date provided herein as provided by law.

Funny how if it doesn’t pass, the “emergency” apparently ceases to exist.


...But, the inaccuracy doesn't really even relate to the Ford Center, as, once the new convention center is constructed, the Cox Convention Center will presumably cease to exist as one, leaving us with one and overflow space again, rather than 3 convention centers. The number 3 is an incorrect one, regardless of what the Ford Center is or isn't.

Although I think you are correct about the Cox ceasing to exist, the Mayor has stated (even recently) that no decision has been made on the future of the Cox. He said they didn't have to make that decision now and he would leave that up to future leadership. There are advantages to keeping it around (like the "spare" arena for big 12 events etc). Since the $60M in improvements to the Cox (the added meeting rooms) from MAPS 1 will just start paying for themselves (plus any additional improvements they are planning on making to it for the still unsecured hockey team), seems rather wasteful to bulldoze it.




And again, the inaccuracy in the MAPS opposition's point is not who is paying for the Myriad Gardens makeover, but rather that Larry Nichols has requested the 70 acre park. The opposition is again either completely uneducated about the plans for MAPS (versus the Myriad Gardens), do not know their city geography or are deliberately attempting to mislead the voters. This isn't just about semantics.

Hmmm, my response was the what I saw as the inaccuracy of Spartan's comment, not the opposition (he covered that pretty well).

Has anyone thought that there may be other reasons why sales tax collections in OKC have been down the last 9 months or so other than a bad economy. We are supposed to be the number 1 most recession proof city in the United States if I am not mistaken. I wonder how much of an increase in tax revenue that Moore, Norman, and MWC have had in the last year or so. I wonder if it is a significant enough increase to offset our decrease. Just something to think about....Thought I might bring this over from the I-40 and Council thread, page 8. I hope that it doesnt offend anyone.Here is the link to the Sales and Use Tax News Releases (http://www.tax.ok.gov/nwsrls.html) published by the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Regarding your point I've lived in Moore, Norman, and Oklahoma City. Our children live in Edmond and Oklahoma City. We have property in more than one place. I know many people who operate substantial businesses in Oklahoma City but live outside the City limits proper and vice versa.

I certainly do not begrudge the smaller cities such as Moore, Warr Acres, Midwest City the sales tax revenue they manage to collect. All of those communities have to provide services and sales tax revenue is a significant source.

It seems to me that the very fact that we citizens are all spread out through the entire metropolitan area is even a greater reason why we should all support a vital, dynamic, prosperous downtown area of our principal City.

And while I'm thinking about it I would support increasing some additional sales tax beyond the MAPS tax. I'm pretty sure that both the firefighters and police forces are understaffed and should be improved. But that's not what this next election is about.

Here is the link to the Sales and Use Tax News Releases (http://www.tax.ok.gov/nwsrls.html) published by the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Regarding your point I've lived in Moore, Norman, and Oklahoma City. Our children live in Edmond and Oklahoma City. We have property in more than one place. I know many people who operate substantial businesses in Oklahoma City but live outside the City limits proper and vice versa.

I certainly do not begrudge the smaller cities such as Moore, Warr Acres, Midwest City the sales tax revenue they manage to collect. All of those communities have to provide services and sales tax revenue is a significant source.

It seems to me that the very fact that we citizens are all spread out through the entire metropolitan area is even a greater reason why we should all support a vital, dynamic, prosperous downtown area of our principal City.

And while I'm thinking about it I would support increasing some additional sales tax beyond the MAPS tax. I'm pretty sure that both the firefighters and police forces are understaffed and should be improved. But that's not what this next election is about.

Thanks for the link, after a brief look without a calculator, tax revenue collection is just as I suspected it would be. If OKC is down, Moore, MWC, Yukon and Norman, are at roughly the same levels or an increase.

I dont disagree with those cities needing to collect tax revenue. I am merely suggesting that we need to keep the tax revenue from OKC in OKC and not let the surrounding cities capitalize on our inability to continue to capture the revenue. It is obvious that our city government relies heavily upon this tax revenue to provide services to our citizens.

I am all for the redevelopment and enhancement of downtown OKC. However, I dont think that this development will bring in the added tax revenue that we are losing to surrounding cities every day. I think that we need to address the development of the outer portions of the city, so that we can keep the tax revenue in OKC. Then take that increased tax revenue and invest it city services and a prosperous downtown development.

No matter what we build downtown, we had better compete for tax dollars in the outer ring of city with these surrounding cities or we will continue to go further and further in the hole. In my opinion, this has everything to do with this election.

Maps Facts website - if you are explaining you are losing the argument. Almost no one now is going to be swayed by the "facts" on any of the websites. I put some "facts" together in a fun parody video, sort of.. video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHAd1PjYLSE) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/4138849931_6949601741.jpg YouTube Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHAd1PjYLSE) The Math: The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster. When confronted the Chamber president Roy Williams agreed.

Thanks for the link, after a brief look without a calculator, tax revenue collection is just as I suspected it would be. If OKC is down, Moore, MWC, Yukon and Norman, are at roughly the same levels or an increase.

I dont disagree with those cities needing to collect tax revenue. I am merely suggesting that we need to keep the tax revenue from OKC in OKC and not let the surrounding cities capitalize on our inability to continue to capture the revenue. It is obvious that our city government relies heavily upon this tax revenue to provide services to our citizens.

I am all for the redevelopment and enhancement of downtown OKC. However, I dont think that this development will bring in the added tax revenue that we are losing to surrounding cities every day. I think that we need to address the development of the outer portions of the city, so that we can keep the tax revenue in OKC. Then take that increased tax revenue and invest it city services and a prosperous downtown development.

No matter what we build downtown, we had better compete for tax dollars in the outer ring of city with these surrounding cities or we will continue to go further and further in the hole. In my opinion, this has everything to do with this election.Moore was down in the last two reports with the same sales tax rate. Norman is up but with a higher rate. Moore has been aggressively pursuing commercial development but it has taken years and lots of hard work on the part of many, many people. The lesson of Moore is that a community can better itself and can make itself more attractive to development but it is a long term process and takes a lot of community support. If you open your business in Moore and join the local Chamber of Commerce then your opening will be celebrated by a rather amazingly large group of your fellow business owners and citizens. That's pretty significant.

It is relevant in thinking about this MAPS project to consider that one of the biggest complaints from Moore residents several years ago was the lack of retail. The city administration took that into account as well as the need for sales tax revenue.

Sales Tax financing of communities is not done everywhere and there are some definite issues with it. But that's another discussion.

As for Oklahoma City competing for business against Moore and other areas I know the economic development teams in all of these cities do compete but there are limits to what can be done and should be done for that matter. For instance Oklahoma City is definitely working to try to secure the outlet mall project. My understanding generally is that cities compete very vigorously but also work together to secure bigger projects for the area and even the state. But it does little good to gain an enterprise that can't really sustain itself so there has to be a good deal of restraint.

I personally remain convinced that continuing MAPS is the best thing that can be accomplished both for Oklahoma City proper and the greater metropolitan area.

... I put some "facts" together in a fun parody video, ...

Only trouble is, as midtowner noted elsewhere, your math doesn't compute. On the flip side, you're not trying to pass it off as accurate. It is thus very appropriate you stated your parody contains "facts" and not actual facts.

Midtowner obviously did not watch the video - go ahead and watch it see the full math and then comment - The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster.

Midtowner obviously did not watch the video - go ahead and watch it see the full math and then comment - The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster.

David, I did watch it. Say parody to me and I'm probably on board for a laugh, until I discover not everyone does good parody. Such was the case here.

As for the math, it does not compute, even when you have the allowance to take into account tax dollars non residents pay. If you're going to pretend it does, then your logic hasn't changed a lot since the Ford center debates.

Midtowner obviously did not watch the video - go ahead and watch it see the full math and then comment - The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster.

I really don't care if the numbers you got looked like this and came straight out of the King James Bible. They're still fundamentally flawed. And if Tom Anderson really said that the average family of four will pay $4,000 over the course of this tax, then he was just as wrong as you are.

The math is very simple, really. Work through it next time before you publish a video on Youtube showing that simple math is beyond your grasp.

The math is very simple, really. Work through it next time before you publish a video on Youtube showing that simple math is beyond your grasp.
Get your side of the argument on MAPS3 to get their numbers right! It's not our job to worry about that. Get your side to publish the "truth". You go talk to Tom Anderson. Tell him to work through the numbers. You give him a lesson. Family Law/Economics Expert.

David, I did watch it. Say parody to me and I'm probably on board for a laugh, until I discover not everyone does good parody. Such was the case here.

As for the math, it does not compute, even when you have the allowance to take into account tax dollars non residents pay. If you're going to pretend it does, then your logic hasn't changed a lot since the Ford center debates.

kevinpate, you, betts, and midtowner have each made your point, which is that in your opinion the math does not compute. Whether or not the math computes I don't know, and frankly don't care. I'm not making any attempt to defend Mr. Glover or his math, except it's not his math, or so he says.

He has said over and over that Tom Anderson is responsible for the math. Is he, I don't know. When Mr. Glover claims he was provided the math by Mr. Anderson, is he being truthful, I don't know.

But in all fairness if you or someone else really cares, then why not give Tom a call. I happen to know Tom Anderson and have always found him to be a nice guy, and have no reason to believe that he would, and/or could, verify or deny Mr. Glovers claim.

Get your side of the argument on MAPS3 to get their numbers right! It's not our job to worry about that. Get your side to publish the "truth". You go talk to Tom Anderson. Tell him to work through the numbers. You give him a lesson. Family Law/Economics Expert.

I haven't actually seen David cite as exactly where he drew that number from. He says Tom Anderson, but I don't know in what context. Ordinarily when we cite numbers like this, we cite not only the source, but when and where that information from that source appears.

He has said over and over that Tom Anderson is responsible for the math. Is he, I don't know. When Mr. Glover claims he was provided the math by Mr. Anderson, is he being truthful, I don't know.

But in all fairness if you or someone else really cares, then why not give Tom a call. I happen to know Tom Anderson and have always found him to be a nice guy, and have no reason to believe that he would, and/or could, verify or deny Mr. Glovers claim.
Ahhhh. The voice of reason. I agree. Thank you Andy. Thank you David. That was funny. I'm smart enough to remember after December 8th. We'll all be in this deal together one way or another and I can say I enjoyed the parody.

I'll be happy to call him and verify those "facts" if he's willing to talk to me. Probably won't happen until Monday, however, since I'm sure he's another one of the people who doesn't work weekends. But, anyone with the ability to multiply and divide more than two places can poke giant holes in them, so I'll be shocked if he says they're his.

Regardless, the anti-tax people and the alarmists multiple daily expenditures by 7 years to come up with a figure they hope people will find shocking. The truth is, however, that most of us waste as much money a day as we're giving to our city government for MAPS. If you smoke, you spend more for a pack of cigarettes a day than MAPS will cost you, and anyone who thinks they're not a waste of money is fooling themselves. I spend more a day on my vice, a cup of coffee at Starbucks, than I give to the government for MAPS. We buy magazines, cheetos, cokes, liquor, etc, none of which add any value to our lives and think nothing of it. Add up what you spend a year on things you don't really need, some of which actually are harmful to your health, and you'll come up with a figure almost assuredly far more than you spend on MAPS.

I'll be happy to call him and verify those "facts" if he's willing to talk to me. Probably won't happen until Monday, however, since I'm sure he's another one of the people who doesn't work weekends. But, anyone with the ability to multiply and divide more than two places can poke giant holes in them, so I'll be shocked if he says they're his.

But look at the bright side. If those numbers don't belong to Tom then you will have gained a bigger hammer. If those are his numbers then (A) you can advise him that his math skills are lacking, or (B) you will find out these/his numbers are correct. Either way you can report back as to your findings

Andy, the problem is that the people who think like David Glover and Mark Shannon could care less about the facts. Do you think if I find that they're not Anderson's figures Glover will take his video down or it will be removed from Shannon's site? Not on your life. So, the people who read posts here are the only ones who will be informed, and he's undoubtedly busily spreading his misinformation wherever he can.

Thank heavens he had no effect on the last vote, when the same misinformation was being spread. What I don't understand is why, if their cause is just, the truth isn't enough.

Andy, with respect, the math doesn't work irrespective of where the numbers arise.

Generally when someone advances an alleged fact, there is a clear source of the information, not a suggestion to call X and PRESS X into telling you the person tossing around information for their agenda is correct in their interpretation.

Bottom line: math is math, and the payment of taxes are the payment of taxes. What's presented in the parody is a blatent falsehood used to advance an agenda.

Sales taxes are paid by residents, non-residents and businesses, in every universe, except perhaps the pseudo universe of those who choose to alter the truth.

The formulas used in the alleged paraody first drops one number out by conveniently, and dishonestly, excluding business and non-residents of OKC, which also pay the MAPs sales taxes.

Then the parody script advocates, oh, 'honest' time, non residents cover 30%, so let's take that out and then claim it's 1000 paid per person who is an OKC resident, or 4,000 for a family of four.

The parody script, which did not write itself, deliberately applies the rest of the collected sales tax solely to OKC residents.

The only words for doing that are ignorance or dishonesty.
The alleged avg. could only be considered an honest calculation if only OKC residents pay the balance of the sales taxes collected.

Of course, that is simply false, though perhaps many bsuinesses wish otherwise. However, local businesses also incur taxes on their purchases.

When someone's math wants to suggests an average family of four spends more on sales taxable purchases in a year's time than the total gross income of an avg. family of four, then there is either unintentional ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Given the past fuzzy math of one of the posters, who actually brought us this particular parody, it's not too difficult to rule out the first possibility.

Either way, it's not improper to call it out for what it is:

Poor math that ignores the reality of tax collection in favor of trying to advance a particular agenda.

Perhaps the Not This MAPs agenda would be better advanced on facts, not falsehoods. However, some of those advocates flinging around and defending the falsehoods via the parody does suggest a certain aversion to relying on facts.

Pity. Before a sense of desperation crept in, and the shift went to scare tactics 101, there were actually some decent arguments for that particular agenda.

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received. :irule:

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received. :irule:


:bow: to da Dawg!

When I grow up, I wanna be like you! Only trouble is, this grandpa don't really wanna grow up.

Andy, with respect, the math doesn't work irrespective of where the numbers arise.

Generally when someone advances an alleged fact, there is a clear source of the information, not a suggestion to call X and PRESS X into telling you the person tossing around information for their agenda is correct in their interpretation.

Bottom line: math is math, and the payment of taxes are the payment of taxes. What's presented in the parody is a blatent falsehood used to advance an agenda.

Sales taxes are paid by residents, non-residents and businesses, in every universe, except perhaps the pseudo universe of those who choose to alter the truth.

The formulas used in the alleged paraody first drops one number out by conveniently, and dishonestly, excluding business and non-residents of OKC, which also pay the MAPs sales taxes.

Then the parody script advocates, oh, 'honest' time, non residents cover 30%, so let's take that out and then claim it's 1000 paid per person who is an OKC resident, or 4,000 for a family of four.

The parody script, which did not write itself, deliberately applies the rest of the collected sales tax solely to OKC residents.

The only words for doing that are ignorance or dishonesty.
The alleged avg. could only be considered an honest calculation if only OKC residents pay the balance of the sales taxes collected.

Of course, that is simply false, though perhaps many bsuinesses wish otherwise. However, local businesses also incur taxes on their purchases.

When someone's math wants to suggests an average family of four spends more on sales taxable purchases in a year's time than the total gross income of an avg. family of four, then there is either unintentional ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Given the past fuzzy math of one of the posters, who actually brought us this particular parody, it's not too difficult to rule out the first possibility.

Either way, it's not improper to call it out for what it is:

Poor math that ignores the reality of tax collection in favor of trying to advance a particular agenda.

Perhaps the Not This MAPs agenda would be better advanced on facts, not falsehoods. However, some of those advocates flinging around and defending the falsehoods via the parody does suggest a certain aversion to relying on facts.

Pity. Before a sense of desperation crept in, and the shift went to scare tactics 101, there were actually some decent arguments for that particular agenda.

Whether someone uses fuzzy math by mistake, uses it intentually to mislead, or by failing to verify, passes bad information, that person and their math, should be called out.

I understand there should be a clear source of where the information came from, and maybe a person calling the facts into question shouldn't have to call. But that seemed to me the best way to call his hand.

I've called the City out numerus times for advancing misinformation, and let me say this, they are very good at how they do it. Misinformation is misinformation, and if it is put forward for the intent purpose to mislead someone, thats wrong no matter who is doing it. In my opinion, which by the way, is generally formed by using their numbers and documented words, the City does it quite often. And sadly gets away with it more times than not.

I agree. The Mayor has pointed out the Cox has "Convention Center" in it's name (this happened when the Myriad got renamed the Cox Convention Center), he said we don't really have a convention center but a sports arena with some meeting rooms added to it. I don't really see the Ford as being a C.C. either but that isn't what the 1993 MAPS ballot states and the Mayor too (see below). So then, are you saying that the good folks at the City (that created the MAPS ballot) and the Mayor are "highly ig'nant"?

I'm not saying that the Cox and Ford are Convention Centers but I can certainly see where the 3 convention centers thing comes from.




Looks like we are in agreement now, if by "Devon has funded" you mean it is basically acting like a bank or a finance company. They are simply providing a loan (but this is different from your original statement).

If it's true that the ballot referred to the Ford Center as a convention center, especially with an actual convention center project elsewhere on the ballot, then that's pretty bad. As for the Cox, calling it a sports arena with meeting rooms around it is fairly accurate. It is after all, smaller than the convention centers in Tulsa, Omaha, and Wichita..and those aren't even close to the cities we want to compete with.

As for Devon and the park, you're missing my point: Yes, they provided the loan, but that's not where Devon's involvement with the park begins. The money for the Myriad Gardens renovations is all coming directly from Devon Tower. In fact that money will never even go close to the General Fund because it will be collected through the TIF district. The park as well as the downtown streetscape are all being completely funded by the Devon TIF which could have just as easily gone to infrastructure for Devon.

Calling the park a request by Devon is just really erroneous on many counts.

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received. :irule:

Doug wins.

from: tom.anderson@okc.gov

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

Regardless, the anti-tax people and the alarmists multiple daily expenditures by 7 years to come up with a figure they hope people will find shocking.
Walmart does the same thing in their recent series of ads (look at all the money you are wasting by shopping elsewhere, shop at Walmart and save "X" amount of money/month/year).

Is that being "alarmist"? Or is simply pointing out that those few pennies a day, a nickel here, a dime there all add up?

Both sides use the numbers that support their position the best. Hopefully, neither side uses numbers that are incorrect (hurts credibility). But if you use numbers from the other side that are incorrect, that seems to be fair game (helpful if you point out that the numbers are incorrect and can provide a link or something that shows these numbers really are from that source).

IF the numbers cited in the "parody" are really the numbers the City has, do you honestly think they are going to be straightforward with it in their pitch? No, they are going to spin it where they can so it doesn't sound so bad. If they can't spin it enough, avoid mentioning it as much as possible and focus on the "penny" angle.

If their numbers are wrong, leads one to ask what other numbers are wrong too. If the City's numbers are wrong on the cost per person, how accurate are their costs of the projects going to be? If they are inconsistent on the private investment amounts that MAPS 1 has generated ($2B, $3B and now $5B, including some things that don't seem to have any relation to MAPS like the I-40 relocation and the Memorial), how accurate are their projections on increased jobs etc from the Convention Center?

The pro-MAPS says it is only a penny tax. The anti-group says it is a $777M tax. Both true statements. Both sides are trying to put it into perspective (at least from their point of view).

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received. :irule:

I think that's the smartest formula anyone has come up with to date!

from: tom.anderson@okc.gov

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

I agree that the math works out very nicely to $10 per person per month, recognizing that many people pay more and many pay less. However, I am curious as to why sales tax paid by businesses inside Oklahoma City was not factored into this equation. Is there a sales tax rebate for all city businesses which I am not aware of? I suspect Devon and Chesapeake buy enough equipment annually to almost dwarf what we mortals are capable of spending.

Thank heavens he had no effect on the last vote, when the same misinformation was being spread. What I don't understand is why, if their cause is just, the truth isn't enough.

oooops, looks like he posted the source material after your post. Agree with the last part completely. I have wondered the same thing about misinformation/misleading information is put out by the pro-side (City/Chamber) as well.

oooops, looks like he posted the source material after your post. Agree with the last part completely. I have wondered the same thing about misinformation/misleading information is put out by the pro-side (City/Chamber) as well.

Personally, I think everyone should avoid misleading information. One has to be a jack-of-all-trades to try and figure out what the truth is, and I stopped taking math at trigonometry. While I think that the MAPS proposals definitely have an economic impact, I think their psychic impact is as important, and perhaps that's what needs to be focused on.

I think the dollars and cents speak for themselves. If we invest public resources downtown, we get an outstanding private return. I'm all for getting an outstanding return in private investment.

http://www.okcchamber.com/media/PDFs/MAPSImpactStudyExecutiveSummary.pdf

$5 billion impact of MAPS.

from: tom.anderson@okc.gov

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

So even going by these numbers (I still find $1,000 per month spending [which is what's required to collect $10.00 worth of a 1% sales tax]by the 'average' OKC citizen to be dubious at best), you're still off by over $500 or over 50% with your single payer number. The "family of four" information doesn't appear here, so I need not address it.

Again, simple math:

7 3/4 years = 7.75 * 12months = 93 months worth of tax @ $10/month = $930 overall cost.

What am I missing? Are you expecting spending per citizen to drastically increase? For inflation to spike at about 300%? Again, simple math proves you wrong; and the numbers don't lie.

Maybe you have a different source? I'll be happy to give you a mulligan.

You really must not have seen or remember the video Midtowner. I say it will be about $1000 average for an OKC citizen. It is less than 2 minutes - surely you can handle it. Google can help you with the math. (777 000 000 / 550 000) * .7 = 988.909091 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Ras&q=777%2C000%2C000%2F550000*.7&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Is it really that simplistic? No. There's nothing factored in for sales taxes from any other sources besides private individuals. Who keeps Office Depot afloat? Not private individuals. How many reams of paper, boxes of envelopes, printers, computers, etc, etc do you think Devon and Chespeake alone purchase annually? Does Office Depot collect sales tax? As far as I know, they do. If I'm wrong, would someone mind correcting me?

You really must not have seen or remember the video Midtowner. I say it will be about $1000 average for an OKC citizen. It is less than 2 minutes - surely you can handle it. Google can help you with the math. (777 000 000 / 550 000) * .7 = 988.909091 777,000,000/550000*.7 - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Ras&q=777%2C000%2C000%2F550000*.7&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Really David? What does the opening CG say? I even gave you an opportunity to change your story. You turned that down.

$1,500/person. Then later on you do change it to $4,000 for a family of four.

So which time were you lying? The time you said $1,500/person or $1,000/person? Just the first time?

Are you really this dense - watch the video and listen to the words - they are not so big, you should understand them the $1500 and the $1000 has a percentage between them of 30%. All that part of the video is a explanation of Tom Anderson's statement. The way you are acting makes me think you may have some vested interest in MAPS 3 passing - is that the case? Tell me you understand the concept of a screen grab of a video and that surely you know there is content before and after the picture and only a moron would think that the picture in time is the only thing that is being said. So do you understand or..... Name what is wrong in the video and what I have said, it is all consistent with Tom, the City and the Chamber.

Personally, I think everyone should avoid misleading information. One has to be a jack-of-all-trades to try and figure out what the truth is, and I stopped taking math at trigonometry. While I think that the MAPS proposals definitely have an economic impact, I think their psychic impact is as important, and perhaps that's what needs to be focused on.

You got me there...mine was college algebra...basically if it involves more than the basics (add/subtract/multiply/divide) it gets risky for me...when I do any of the math, perform it 3 or 4 times, just to make sure...and even then sometimes something goes wonky...LOL

Perhaps and it is a lot harder to refute something based on emotional, warm-n-fuzzies...people's emotions are valid to them...when hard numbers and facts are involved, they are much easier to defend/refute.

I think the dollars and cents speak for themselves. If we invest public resources downtown, we get an outstanding private return. I'm all for getting an outstanding return in private investment.

http://www.okcchamber.com/media/PDFs/MAPSImpactStudyExecutiveSummary.pdf

$5 billion impact of MAPS.

Please understand I am not taking issue with your post per se but with with the Chamber. Think I read that report before (will go back and read it again), but where is the $5 billion coming from? On the Chamber's website (Keep OKC Moving - Vote Yes for MAPS on December 8! (http://www.yesformaps.com/)) they have given 3 different amounts (2 on the same page)...$2B, $3B and now $5B. The $3B and $5B are both on the home page (the $5B in the first paragraph and the $3B in the "did you know" sidebar to the right) the $2B was the figure thrown around (think it was in the 1st version of the report). There is no frame of reference on the site for the numbers that might explain it (like they were years apart). Seems like it would be easier if they would pick one number and stick to it. Any of the numbers is impressive so why the apparent need to jack it up (and in some cases, apparently artificially, by including things like the I-40 relocation and the Memorial as part of MAPS).

I am not disputing any of the numbers they have thrown out there (but a recent Oklahoman article put the amount as "100s of millions" (obviously less than $1B).

Am curious, if the "return on investment" has been "10 fold" which loosely matches the $3B figure (think that was on the Chamber's MAPS 3 site or a quote from them in an article), where has all the money gone? By that, shouldn't this MAPS have already paid for itself and there not be any need for a MAPS 3 tax? Or at least a substantial down payment? A good investment (10 fold return sounds pretty good to me) should be your money making money for you.

But lets take the $5B figure as gospel. That is $5B of "forward momentum" that doesn't really seem to be slowing down any ($2B, then $3B then $5B) all in the past couple of years, all without a MAPS 3. Just don't see it going away, slowing down, or *gasp* stopping. Not to say that with MAPS 3 a similar 10 fold return couldn't happen as well (and that is what is being implied), the $777M becomes $8 billion (mol). At some point there is a diminishing rate of return, so that may be a stretch.

If it's true that the ballot referred to the Ford Center as a convention center, especially with an actual convention center project elsewhere on the ballot, then that's pretty bad.

Dang, I was all set to pounce on this one...but in my repost of the original quoted text from the ballot, it got left out somehow so here they are again...


(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

And the Mayor's statement (the link originally provided no longer takes you to this quote). I got it from the Chamber's site but was in an Oklahoman article (sorry don't have which one marked):


“This investment will not only help us attract our own NBA franchise, but also will make us more desirable for bigger and better concerts, special events and conventions.”

Anyway, you did have me curious about what it said about the Myriad/Cox and it looks like I was mistaken (thinking the word "Convention" was added when they renamed it the Cox). Don't know if Convention was part of it's "official" name or not, always knew it as the "Myriad" just as most just call it the "Cox" now. But it does label it that way on the 1993 MAPS ballot:


(B)(4) The improvement of the Myriad Convention Center and/or related facilities;

Hmmm, what are the "related facilities"? LOL



Calling the park a request by Devon is just really erroneous on many counts.

I agree and as I said before I haven't seen anything that supports that claim either.

Wish I had the original MAPS Ordinance text but can't seem to locate it on the City's site. Am sure it had more details than the Ballot :-(

But lets take the $5B figure as gospel. That is $5B of "forward momentum" that doesn't really seem to be slowing down any ($2B, then $3B then $5B) all in the past couple of years, all without a MAPS 3. Just don't see it going away, slowing down, or *gasp* stopping. Not to say that with MAPS 3 a similar 10 fold return couldn't happen as well (and that is what is being implied), the $777M becomes $8 billion (mol). At some point there is a diminishing rate of return, so that may be a stretch.

Obviously, again, I don't have the ability to confirm or refute the Chamber's numbers. But, for arguments sake, let's say the number isn't important. We know that MAPS stimulated all sorts of development and to me, the dollar amount is less important than the fact that it happened. Let's look at what is happening right now, and what might continue to happen (so, for arguments' sake we'll say momentum continues).

Broadway is developing nicely around Automobile Alley. There are more buildings that could be turned into retail or restaurants there. Let's say it happens. 9th Street still has a ways to go and some empty land, so we'll say that Mel's garage gets completed and the entire street is a destination. The presence of both Broadway and 9th street could well lead to more housing being built in that area. I seem to remember Bert Berlanger talking about wanting to do that in one of the meetings. So, I'll grant that it could happen, and probably will. There may development of some of the other side streets in that area as well, if numbers of people living there increases.

Deep Deuce will almost assuredly continue to fill in, albeit much more slowly than planned, due to the economy. Bricktown will hopefully have more businesses and restaurants move in, renewing buildings that are still under or unutilized.

The boathouses will be built along the river, as will the Native American cultural center. It is possible that, at the conjunction of Lincoln and the river, we would see some type of restaurant or entertainment venue constructed.

Film Row is developing nicely, and the construction of the Devon Tower and the streetscaping will give the entire southwestern portion of downtown a huge boost, no matter what happens, IMO.

Midtown will see more housing, and perhaps the addition of more restaurants. Maybe we'll even ultimately see some retail in that area.

Those are the things I see happening no matter whether MAPS passes or not, barring another economic turndown, so that's momentum that I see as fairly inevitable. I don't really see much else happening downtown if MAPS fails. They may get the boulevard built, but it will be a street. There will be no impetus to do anything south of it quickly, because the sheer size of the land there and the blight present there will make it risky to be some of the first businesses located there, and people will have no reason to go south of the boulevard.

What I see happening if MAPS 3 passes is very different:

If it passes, we will have street car lines planned even before it is built. We'll probably know where the stops will be. Developers will know that their businesses will be visible to everyone riding the streetcar, and I can see land along the line being snapped up well before it is even constructed.

We will, ultimately, know where the convention center will be built, and land will be purchased and clearing for the park will start, long before it's actually constructed. Again, when developers know that there will be a convention center and a park in those locations, people in the hotel and restaurant business, people wanting to build urban housing will be snapping land up and making plans. The existence of plans generates other plans.

People will know that grandstands are being built along the river. They will know that the number of river events will be increasing. There will be plans for restaurants, perhaps entertainment venues and perhaps even retail that appeals to people in water, running and biking sports.

MAPS passing, IMO, will create a mushroom of new development in new places, whereas if it doesn't pass, I see what we've already started continuing to grow and improve. It will make Core to Shore plans more visible to the people who, right now, aren't even paying attention to them. It will make the area between the CBD and the river a part of everyone's concept of "downtown". I think development could be huge.

That's my opinion, of course, and I'm sure the people voting against it think I'm wrong, or simply don't care.

Alright Larry, nothing get's past you! That's a good way to be.

I was just stressing that while yes the loan is from Devon, so is the money in the first place, for the Myriad Gardens, which opposition has confused as a demand from Devon to make taxpayers build a $130 million park.

Not that we as citizens don't have a civic responsibility to match the investment being made by downtown stakeholders.

Obviously, again, I don't have the ability to confirm or refute the Chamber's numbers. But, for arguments sake, let's say the number isn't important. We know that MAPS stimulated all sorts of development and to me, the dollar amount is less important than the fact that it happened. Let's look at what is happening right now, and what might continue to happen (so, for arguments' sake we'll say momentum continues).

Broadway is developing nicely around Automobile Alley. There are more buildings that could be turned into retail or restaurants there. Let's say it happens. 9th Street still has a ways to go and some empty land, so we'll say that Mel's garage gets completed and the entire street is a destination. The presence of both Broadway and 9th street could well lead to more housing being built in that area. I seem to remember Bert Berlanger talking about wanting to do that in one of the meetings. So, I'll grant that it could happen, and probably will. There may development of some of the other side streets in that area as well, if numbers of people living there increases.

Deep Deuce will almost assuredly continue to fill in, albeit much more slowly than planned, due to the economy. Bricktown will hopefully have more businesses and restaurants move in, renewing buildings that are still under or unutilized.

The boathouses will be built along the river, as will the Native American cultural center. It is possible that, at the conjunction of Lincoln and the river, we would see some type of restaurant or entertainment venue constructed.

Film Row is developing nicely, and the construction of the Devon Tower and the streetscaping will give the entire southwestern portion of downtown a huge boost, no matter what happens, IMO.

Midtown will see more housing, and perhaps the addition of more restaurants. Maybe we'll even ultimately see some retail in that area.

Those are the things I see happening no matter whether MAPS passes or not, barring another economic turndown, so that's momentum that I see as fairly inevitable. I don't really see much else happening downtown if MAPS fails. They may get the boulevard built, but it will be a street. There will be no impetus to do anything south of it quickly, because the sheer size of the land there and the blight present there will make it risky to be some of the first businesses located there, and people will have no reason to go south of the boulevard.

What I see happening if MAPS 3 passes is very different:

If it passes, we will have street car lines planned even before it is built. We'll probably know where the stops will be. Developers will know that their businesses will be visible to everyone riding the streetcar, and I can see land along the line being snapped up well before it is even constructed.

We will, ultimately, know where the convention center will be built, and land will be purchased and clearing for the park will start, long before it's actually constructed. Again, when developers know that there will be a convention center and a park in those locations, people in the hotel and restaurant business, people wanting to build urban housing will be snapping land up and making plans. The existence of plans generates other plans.

People will know that grandstands are being built along the river. They will know that the number of river events will be increasing. There will be plans for restaurants, perhaps entertainment venues and perhaps even retail that appeals to people in water, running and biking sports.

MAPS passing, IMO, will create a mushroom of new development in new places, whereas if it doesn't pass, I see what we've already started continuing to grow and improve. It will make Core to Shore plans more visible to the people who, right now, aren't even paying attention to them. It will make the area between the CBD and the river a part of everyone's concept of "downtown". I think development could be huge.

That's my opinion, of course, and I'm sure the people voting against it think I'm wrong, or simply don't care.

That was quite an impressive list and conclusion (in bold). That was my point and thanks for supplying the specifics beyond the Devon Tower and resulting 180 that I mentioned. Glad we are finally in agreement on this part. Next!

Alright Larry, nothing get's past you! That's a good way to be....

Thanks (I think...LOL)

Ran across this along the way regarding the Fairgrounds improvements in MAPS 1 (sorry, didn't make note at the time where I got it):

Was to include a “...world class auction center to increase Oklahoma’ City’s ability to attract horse industry events. Other tax money would fund improvements to existing facilities.”

Not sure if we got that or not? Anyone know?

There is an auction center at the Fairgrounds. I don't know about 'world class' though. There's a reason I'm apprehensive about throwing a ton of money into the Fairgrounds, but I'm sure that the Fairgrounds people are apprehensive about throwing a ton of money into them newfangled downtown thinga majiggers.

It is quite paradoxical that the city would have chosen the path it did because of some perceived possibility because by avoiding one potential issue in the manner they have chosen, they ran full bore into another one.

Art 10, Section 19 of the Constitution, states "Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which the tax is levied. . . " (emphasis added).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Capital improvements" seems to run far afoul of "specify[ing] distinctly" any purpose whatsoever. In fact, it tends to do exactly the opposite by saying that the city reserves the right to do just about any damn thing it wants with the money... arguably "capital improvements" could mean just about anything, possibly even salaries.

Worse still, the argument under Article 10 is much stronger, IMHO, than any argument arising under Article 5 since Article 5's language by its own terms only applies to the legislature, whereas if you'll look at the bolded text above, the language under Article 10 applies to municipalities.

The city's essentially arguing that the Article 5 "single subject" rule applies to municipalities in light of the fact that the Constitution, at least by its own terms makes no provision whatsoever for it applying to municipalities. The city seems to be envisioning some bizzaro-land Supreme Court opinion coming down the pike which would interpret this meaning in while completely ignoring the much more realistic issue that under Article 10, Section 19, something which by its own terms specifically does apply to the city doesn't really mean what it says.

-- tough sell, imho.

That said, I've got my own view of this thing.. maybe there's another. It's not like I've researched this issue as if I was being paid to do it, so I might be missing something. It'd sure as heck be a lot more comforting though if those city attorneys who are actually being paid to research this stuff would cite something specific, because otherwise, the city wanting this vague language for no other reason than the fact that it wants vague language is unsettling indeed.
Since the issue regarding “spelling out” the ballot items has been so ardently debated, I am going to post this reasoning on multiple threads as it has been explained to me.

The “single-subject rule” means that you can’t list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1.

The State Legislature is bound to the single-subject rule by Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57 (“Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes….;”)

The single-subject rule is also generally applicable to municipal ordinances under 11 O.S. § 14-104 (“An ordinance may contain only one subject and the subject shall be expressed in its title.”) and specifically applicable to OKC ordinances under OKC Charter Art. II, § 25 (“No ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”)

But you’re thinking, “Okay, but these laws existed in 1993, so what has changed?” What has changed, or at least been clarified, is the Oklahoma Supreme Court interpretation of what “single-subject” means.

Since 1991, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued five legal opinions dealing the single-subject rule. A recent case containing maybe the clearest explanation of the objectives behind the single-subject rule, as declared and applied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, is Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 2009 OK 15.

In Fent, a single State act authorized issuance of revenues bonds to finance projects for the (1) Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, (2) the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and (3) the River Parks Authority. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶ 2. The bonds for the NACEA had already been issued, so Plaintiff Fent was not challenging those bonds; however, he was challenging and seeking to stop issuance of the bonds for the OCC and the RPA on the basis that the act authorizing such bonds was unconstitutional under Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57, the single-subject rule. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶¶ 2, 11.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Fent, striking down the State act as violative of the single-subject rule. I’ll let you look up the case if you want more details on the test for a finding of a single-subject violation, but suffice it to say, it’s pretty obvious MAPS 1 would have been struck down, if it had been challenged.

Now why would this interpretation of the single-subject rule would apply to municipalities? I think the most obvious response is “Why wouldn’t it?” As explained above, different “single-subject” provisions of Oklahoma law apply to the legislature and to cities, but they use the exact same language, have the exact same policy goals, and address the exact same issue. It is an immaterial fact that the Supreme Court was speaking in Fent v. State about a legislative act, and not a municipal act. There is no reason to believe the ruling is so narrow that it’s interpretation of “single-subject” applies only to one use of the phrase in Oklahoma law, but not to an identical usage elsewhere in Oklahoma statutes. To simply hope that the ruling was so inexplicably narrow would be folly, and there is no lawyer at City Hall that is willing to recommend a course of action so clearly reckless.

There is not really anything that I can add to this. Its seems to be the city counselor's interpretation.

Thanks for that explanation. I was aware of the Fent line of cases, but not the provisions under Title 11 and the Charter.

That all makes good sense. It seems there's a modicum of legal authority which supports the city's current course, but none as to whether they're just violating Article 10, Section 19 of the Constitution instead.

I'm sure our courts will get a chance to work this issue out either way. I'm glad our founders and framers had the foresight to tie government's hands when government wants something which the people do not.