I think it's just hard for many to grasp why someone who lives here and stands to benefit from the increased revenue and economic development that MAPS will create would not want that to happen. It's easy to understand why someone in another community would not want MAPS to pass because they stand to gain all of the development that chooses their community over the city, which will in turn increase the quality of their services as Oklahoma City fishes for new funding sources as its revenues decline or flatten.

Given the amount of money that MAPS has brought into the city, it just makes sense to keep reinvesting it into the city for future generations. We will get a quality of life that continues to improve, while more economic development means more revenue for the city and its services. If the city does not continue to find ways to offer marquee facilities, infrastructure, and attractions it will become irrelevant within the region. Why does someone who lives here want that?

The reality it seems is that most of the opposition is really indifferent to that. What they are doing is using MAPS 3 as an attention grab to draw publicity to their causes which are tangential at best or they have a rigid political philosophy that is focused more on the means than the ends.. The irony is that many of the opposition groups, like fire and police, stand to gain significantly from increased revenue generated from an elevated city profile. Stagnant investment into ones community is a recipe for erosion of funds and revenue stream and one the first thing that always gets cut is city services (see Detroit). Of course, if they don't live in the city, maybe they don't care, as they want to see their job moved to their community in the first place.

And I think what you're failing to grasp is that nothing in MAPS3 will improve my quality of life. I don't live downtown. I don't have a vehicle to get me to the Park, I don't have a vehicle to get me to the Streetcar, and if I did, it would be ridiculous for me to drive to a streetcar stop and ride it for an additional 3-5 miles.

None of the generated taxes will be used to improve my neighborhood, none of it will be used to improve the blighted areas of the city that aren't in the Downtown area. Look at Pete Brzycki's post about his visit to the City and his impression of the NW part of town. Why didn't all the tax revenue generated by MAPS1 and M4K help the rest of the city? How is MAPS3 going to be any different?

And I think what you're failing to grasp is that nothing in MAPS3 will improve my quality of life. I don't live downtown. I don't have a vehicle to get me to the Park, I don't have a vehicle to get me to the Streetcar, and if I did, it would be ridiculous for me to drive to a streetcar stop and ride it for an additional 3-5 miles.

None of the generated taxes will be used to improve my neighborhood, none of it will be used to improve the blighted areas of the city that aren't in the Downtown area. Look at Pete Brzycki's post about his visit to the City and his impression of the NW part of town. Why didn't all the tax revenue generated by MAPS1 and M4K help the rest of the city? How is MAPS3 going to be any different?

me, me, me, me, me - what about ME? How is it going to help ME? Whats in it for ME?

Hey, mugobeer, when did you learn the words to the Police / Fire / AFSCME fight song?

And I think what you're failing to grasp is that nothing in MAPS3 will improve my quality of life.
I believe that.

I live in Midtown. I've used pretty much every MAPS 1 element and I plan to use pretty much every MAPS 3 element. 6 Yes MAPS signs around our building.

BTW, I'm a direct statistic for this type of investment. I would have never lived downtown if not for the amenities of MAPS 1. I'm willing to bet that more people will follow suit, once MAPS 3 is in full motion.

And I think what you're failing to grasp is that nothing in MAPS3 will improve my quality of life. I don't live downtown. I don't have a vehicle to get me to the Park, I don't have a vehicle to get me to the Streetcar, and if I did, it would be ridiculous for me to drive to a streetcar stop and ride it for an additional 3-5 miles.

None of the generated taxes will be used to improve my neighborhood, none of it will be used to improve the blighted areas of the city that aren't in the Downtown area. Look at Pete Brzycki's post about his visit to the City and his impression of the NW part of town. Why didn't all the tax revenue generated by MAPS1 and M4K help the rest of the city? How is MAPS3 going to be any different?

So, you're most upset that MAPS doesn't spend a disproportionate amount of money in your neighborhood, correct? In other words "where's mine?"

The reality is that the city is spread out way too much for any initiative to take on the improvement of EVERY neighborhood at once. It would just take too much resources. However, revenue generated by tax dollars in the city is IN FACT spent in your neighborhood. And the less of it the city generates the less of it there will be to spend on your neighborhood.

The strategy is to build large marquee attractions that attract more people and more visitors to Oklahoma City, because, well, that's where the money comes from. You can not build ANYTHING of any significance if we were to divide every project up equally amongst every sector of the city. The economies of scale just aren't there to support it. So, we strengthen the core and build things that can actually compete with other cities of our size as a means to generate a net increase in revenue and economic influx.

Sure, we can come to everyone's neighborhood and paint every house, but it would not generate any more revenue for the city, because there would be no net gain in our balance of trade, that is, no new revenue coming into the city.

So, you may not be able to walk out your door and touch the impact of any of these projects directly. But it's very likely you will if we don't pass it as more and more development leaves the city and we have MORE blighted areas because we did not continue to invest in our city to ensure future revenue. In fact, the blighted areas we do have right now are the lingering affects of a city that failed to reinvest in itself for so long. On the flip side there are many neighborhoods in the core that were considered blighted not to long ago that have greatly benefited from the strengthening and rebirth of the city.

The bottom line is that you can not detach yourself from your community. I know that's not really the mid-America way, but it's true. The revenue generated (or not generated) in every part of the city is felt in every other part and the only way to see significant increases in economic development is to focus on large projects that are competitive rather than a bunch of mediocre projects whose positive affects are minimized by their very lack of scale.

Basically, if you want money for EVERY neighborhood including yours, we have to increase our revenue stream significantly first. The only way to do that is through large centralized projects that have centralized access.

BTW, there will not be one single dollar more spent in my neighborhood than yours. But I work here and the business I work for is located in the city (for now). As my city improves, the community improves, business improves, my life improves. I in no way fail to grasp my connection to the community of Oklahoma City and that's why I know we need bigger and better developments and infrastructure just to stay competitive in our own metropolitan area, let alone the region, in attracting new businesses and services.

I don't live downtown, but I live and work in Oklahoma City and the impact MAPS3 can have on my livelihood and that of my family is not very hard to see, imo.

In the end, yes, there is no MAPS 4 ME or MAPS JUST FOR YOU, but I don't see any benefit in spiting the progress of the city as a whole just because there isn't a disproportionate share of direct money being spent in my district.

No, you're right, that's got to be it. I'm not voting for MAPS3 because none of it is about me. If my name isn't mentioned in the Ballot, I'm going to vote No every time.

Grow up and stop trying to push off the issue as something personal. I've stated numerous times why I'm not voting.

Pete Brzycki posted that he didn't want to post pictures of the blight outside of the Downtown area because of how negatively it would reflect on the City. These aren't new areas of the city, this has been going on for years and years. Long enough that the enourmous tax revenues from the previous 2 MAPS initiative should have been able to counter the downward turn.

Yes, I said "me" and "I". I said that because that's how every other No voter like me feels. We continue to see DT glorified and improved and draped in affection by the city council, while they continue to approve every single half-assed stripmall and bingo hall and pawn shop they can cram into the rest of the city, ignoring all the crumbling remnants of previous stripmalls, bingo halls and pawn shops.

You're 100% correct that it's not MAPS 4 ME, unless you're one of the few who live Downtown and will reap 100% of the benefits from this.

I guess MAPS 4 DT is a better description.

Of course, that's if the City council actually uses the money for what they listed.

I'm quite sure the trails, sidewalks, and senior aquatic centers are not downtown. The downtown streetcar is designed as the focus of what many of us hope will become a citywide mass transit program, with potential extension even to the suburbs. So, I'm not sure how people living downtown will reap 100% of the benefits, since almost half of them won't even be built downtown.

No, you're right, that's got to be it. I'm not voting for MAPS3 because none of it is about me. If my name isn't mentioned in the Ballot, I'm going to vote No every time.

Grow up and stop trying to push off the issue as something personal. I've stated numerous times why I'm not voting.

Pete Brzycki posted that he didn't want to post pictures of the blight outside of the Downtown area because of how negatively it would reflect on the City. These aren't new areas of the city, this has been going on for years and years. Long enough that the enourmous tax revenues from the previous 2 MAPS initiative should have been able to counter the downward turn.

Yes, I said "me" and "I". I said that because that's how every other No voter like me feels. We continue to see DT glorified and improved and draped in affection by the city council, while they continue to approve every single half-assed stripmall and bingo hall and pawn shop they can cram into the rest of the city, ignoring all the crumbling remnants of previous stripmalls, bingo halls and pawn shops.

You're 100% correct that it's not MAPS 4 ME, unless you're one of the few who live Downtown and will reap 100% of the benefits from this.

I guess MAPS 4 DT is a better description.

Of course, that's if the City council actually uses the money for what they listed.

I apologize. I have not researched your entire anti-maps opus, but I guess you are now saying that you don't care that it's not for you or your district, you are just bitter that most of it will be built in the city's core and that you are bitter that there are (gasp!) still some blighted areas of the city and since there are still blighted areas of the city, then MAPS is a failure and we should stop reinvesting in our city. And that all the positively impacted areas of MAPS should be disregarded because there are still some blighted areas out there. I guess if we can't fix 'em all, we shouldn't fix any of 'em. Right? the reality is that if Pete took pictures of all the blighted areas in 1990 and all the blighted areas in 2009, he would have less pictures to take in 2009.

I guess we need MAPS for EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW or, what? Nothing?

I will admit that I am failing to grasp that you are actually sincere. There's got to be some reason you are against it other than just because it's downtown (where should it go? Putnam City? I-240?) or that there are still some blighted areas in the city.


Grow up and stop trying to push off the issue as something personal.

I didn't make it personal. YOU did (my emphasis):


And I think what you're failing to grasp is that nothing in MAPS3 will improve MY quality of life.

Sorry if I assumed you were talking about yourself when you said "my".

It's the economy folks. End of story.

I apologize. I have not researched your entire anti-maps opus, but I guess you are now saying that you don't care that it's not for you or your district, you are just bitter that most of it will be built in the city's core and that you are bitter that there are (gasp!) still some blighted areas of the city and since there are still blighted areas of the city, then MAPS is a failure and we should stop reinvesting in our city. And that all the positively impacted areas of MAPS should be disregarded because there are still some blighted areas out there. I guess if we can't fix 'em all, we shouldn't fix any of 'em. Right? the reality is that if Pete took pictures of all the blighted areas in 1990 and all the blighted areas in 2009, he would have less pictures to take in 2009.

I guess we need MAPS for EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW or, what? Nothing?

I will admit that I am failing to grasp that you are actually sincere. There's got to be some reason you are against it other than just because it's downtown (where should it go? Putnam City? I-240?) or that there are still some blighted areas in the city.



I didn't make it personal. YOU did (my emphasis):



Sorry if I assumed you were talking about yourself when you said "my".

I'm sincere in the fact that I think there's at least a dozen things more important than a white water rapids ride downtown. Or a set of Aquatic centers. I can't give you a specific location where improvements should be made because they're ALL OVER THE CITY. The only exception is the Downtown area which is THRIVING.

I'm sincere in the fact that I think the wording of the ballot and the proposal is specifically designed to circumvent the OK Constitution. There's no other reason for them to refuse to reword it other than that they plan to use the "Capital Improvement" label to earmark money for projects that wouldn't ever be considered for MAPS to begin with.

I'm sincere in the fact that despite the city proclaiming MAPS1 and M4K huge sucesses(which I don't dispute they were), it seems that NONE of the tax windfall created by the previous 2 MAPS programs made it into the restoration or even basic maintenance of the City outside of Downtown. I don't just mean lawns mowed or cops hired. I'm talking about everything that is being promised to the rest of the city in terms of jobs, saftey, etc.. in regards to MAPS3. The same things were promised before and the city continues to degrade while the focal point of MAPS3 is Thriving already.

Is it too much to ask that the rest of the City be brought up to the same level as the downtown area before we spend money on things like parks and water rides?

Is it too much to ask that the rest of the City be brought up to the same level as the downtown area before we spend money on things like parks and water rides?

Although anyone who has actually driven south of Reno downtown knows that the level there is about as low as it is conceivably possible for a city to be, and places like Film Row are just beginning to experience renewal, not to mention parts of Deep Deuce, east of Broadway, etc, seriously, can you honestly say that downtown is at some phenomenal "level", when I consider it to be on the cusp of actually being acceptable?

Regardless, for argument's sake, let's say that downtown is wonderful and perfect and needs no improvement. What precisely do you think should be done to "bring the rest of the city up to the same level as the downtown"? Give us your recommendations. What should we be spending tax money on? Obviously not sidewalks, since we've already got a bond issue for them, and they were going to be included in MAPS 3. Obviously not roads, because they were provided for by the bond issue in 12/07. Obviously not schools, since MAPS for Kids will be addressing them. What public works do you think will improve the rest of the city. And, since there are many very nice parts of the city, what parts specifically do you believe need improving and how?

Why?So you would ask stupid questions.

We continue to see DT glorified and improved and draped in affection by the city council, while they continue to approve every single half-assed stripmall and bingo hall and pawn shop they can cram into the rest of the city, ignoring all the crumbling remnants of previous stripmalls, bingo halls and pawn shops.



Seems like the shnazzy new park would be a nice escape for the folks who live in the war torn areas of OKC

OK your the first on the list. Thank you. Next.
I live in Mesta Park, Oklahoma City.

Next?

NO DEBATE from the Mayor. No transparency. It's a "NO" vote. Send them back to the drawing board.

Although anyone who has actually driven south of Reno downtown knows that the level there is about as low as it is conceivably possible for a city to be, and places like Film Row are just beginning to experience renewal, not to mention parts of Deep Deuce, east of Broadway, etc, seriously, can you honestly say that downtown is at some phenomenal "level", when I consider it to be on the cusp of actually being acceptable?


South of Reno downtown?? Are you serious? Have you been outside of Downtown at all in the last 5 years?

Tell ya what Betts, Come by my house Friday night. Don't drive, take the bus. Get off at 39th and Penn. I'll meet you there, around 7pm. You can walk the route to the grocery store my grandmother used when she got mugged and mutilated in Sept. After that we can take a stroll down to Bobo's Chicken. We'll have to cut through Philips Park, but you've got your Conceal Carry, right?

If you think that South of Reno downtown is "about as low as it is conceivably possible for a city to be", you're in for a rude awakening my friend.


Regardless, for argument's sake, let's say that downtown is wonderful and perfect and needs no improvement. What precisely do you think should be done to "bring the rest of the city up to the same level as the downtown"? Give us your recommendations. What should we be spending tax money on? Obviously not sidewalks, since we've already got a bond issue for them, and they were going to be included in MAPS 3. Obviously not roads, because they were provided for by the bond issue in 12/07. Obviously not schools, since MAPS for Kids will be addressing them. What public works do you think will improve the rest of the city. And, since there are many very nice parts of the city, what parts specifically do you believe need improving and how?

Read this thread: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/19984-thoughts-my-okc-trip-november-2009-a.html

I've been at 39th and Penn plenty of times. I used to live near there. I've lived worse places in Oklahoma City as well, and, places I lived in Denver would probably make your hair stand on end. If that's where you live, you really don't have an understanding of how one goes about trying to improve a city. But, clearly, I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

I've read Pete's thread, and even posted in it. I've lived in other cities with problems as well, and what I've found is that if you improve a city's core and you add mass transit, you make the city more attractive to people who ordinarily would move out to the suburbs. Those people start moving closer in, and they start fixing up older neighborhoods. Then, property values rise and you get even more people moving in. That spills over to the schools, the parks, the streets. In fact, my post in Pete's thread was about 23rd St. I used to live on 24th St. right behind the area on 23rd St. that's being renewed, so it's exciting to me to see what's being done to that area. As they improve 23rd, that will spill over to the neighborhoods north and south of it. That's what we need to do in this city.....not fail to improve our core so that everyone with the money to buy a house moves to Edmond.

Tell ya what Betts, Come by my house Friday night. Don't drive, take the bus. Get off at 39th and Penn. I'll meet you there, around 7pm. You can walk the route to the grocery store my grandmother used when she got mugged and mutilated in Sept. After that we can take a stroll down to Bobo's Chicken. We'll have to cut through Philips Park, but you've got your Conceal Carry, right?

If you think that South of Reno downtown is "about as low as it is conceivably possible for a city to be", you're in for a rude awakening my friend.
She's in a bubble. Good luck with her Purple. I hear ya though.

I don't know what part of Denver made your "hair stand up" anymore than parts of this city. That's possibly going to cut 34 Police officers in less than two weeks.

Take a look..we can beat them in 4 out of 7 categories. Geez
Crime Rate Comparison: Denver Vs. Oklahoma City (http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Denver&s1=CO&c2=Oklahoma+City&s2=OK)

I've been at 39th and Penn plenty of times. I used to live near there. I've lived worse places in Oklahoma City as well, and, places I lived in Denver would probably make your hair stand on end. If that's where you live, you really don't have an understanding of how one goes about trying to improve a city. But, clearly, I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

I've read Pete's thread, and even posted in it. I've lived in other cities with problems as well, and what I've found is that if you improve a city's core and you add mass transit, you make the city more attractive to people who ordinarily would move out to the suburbs. Those people start moving closer in, and they start fixing up older neighborhoods. Then, property values rise and you get even more people moving in. That spills over to the schools, the parks, the streets. In fact, my post in Pete's thread was about 23rd St. I used to live on 24th St. right behind the area on 23rd St. that's being renewed, so it's exciting to me to see what's being done to that area. As they improve 23rd, that will spill over to the neighborhoods north and south of it. That's what we need to do in this city.....not fail to improve our core so that everyone with the money to buy a house moves to Edmond.

I think I do have an understanding in how to improve a city.

You wanted a concrete example? ok, here's one. Let's reopen the public pools that the city has closed in the past few years due to lack of funding. The lack of funding part is kinda surprising, considering how successful the previous 2 MAPS were in creating all this increased Tax Revenue.

How does it make more sense to build brand new Aquatic Centers with MAPS3 when there's already existing Aquatic Centers being closed because the City can't afford to keep them open?

Please explain it to me, since I seem to have no idea how to improve a city.

It's the economy folks. End of story.

Recessions don't just happen for no reason. There is a catalyst and, as we have seen, lots and lots of people get laid off work. However, there are far more people whose jobs and lives have not been affected by the recession who have pulled in their horns and stopped spending. Granted people always need to spend wisely and not spend their credit cards until they are maxed-out, but millions of people who are perfectly well-off with secure jobs have stopped spending.

When people stop spending, the system starts to collapse in on itself. When even the folks who have jobs stop spending, goods don't get purchased. When goods aren't purchased, goods aren't produced and more get laid off, etc, etc.

My point is that a huge part of this recession is due to the fact that the media scared the **** out of people with daily news that things were horrible and getting worse. When all the networks preach it, the right wing talk shows preach it, the left wing major media preaches it and everyone repeats what the media feeds them, it becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. Yes, things were bad and we desperately needed to clean up our economic act. However, the media is responsible for making the recession significantly worse.

Your comment above seems to indicate that MAPS3 shouldn't be approved because we are in the midst of a recession. What good is it going to do an economy to NOT spend? First, the cost of MAPS to each of us is relatively tiny. Second, MAPS projects would create jobs during constructions and, if successful, would result in new private investment thus creating more jobs, etc, etc. To vote "no" simply because we are in a recession is the exact opposite of what we should do.

Remember the Great Depression and the WPA projects? OKC has a few of them that are left. WPA built Taft Stadium. WPA built the zoo amphitheater, WPA built the Municipal Building downtown. WPA also built the San Antonio Riverwalk and the Golden Gate Bridge. MAPS is, in a way, our own local WPA.

You can be opposed to MAPS for many things, but don't make the mistake of being against it simply because of the recession. MAPS will put people to work and help the recession on a local level. Remember that money spent locally rotates through the economy multiple times.

So you would ask stupid questions.

I'm not the idiot in a union trying to hijack the city for selfish reasons. Reasons that happen to be unrelated to what's actually being voted on.

try to disagree civilly... ok, folks?

-M

union trying to hijack the city for selfish reasons.

I haven't thought of this is these terms, but this is absolutely the case. They have hijacked the issue.

Get off at 39th and Penn. I'll meet you there, around 7pm. You can walk the route to the grocery store my grandmother used when she got mugged and mutilated in Sept. After that we can take a stroll down to Bobo's Chicken. We'll have to cut through Philips Park, but you've got your Conceal Carry, right?

I go there all the time. Mostly at night to shop. It's much better than it was when I graduated high school 20 years ago. What would a sales tax proposition look like to improve that area? What infrastructure could be put in place that would generate more revenue for city services through increased commerce and tourism in the area? Of course, you will need a comprehensive plan that balances it with the same commitment of resources to all other districts or you will run into the same arguments as your own.

You make good points about the aquatics centers. I haven't done any research about it, but seems pretty logical. Of course, I'll never use them, so maybe I should be against such a proposal...

I'm not the idiot in a union trying to hijack the city for selfish reasons. Reasons that happen to be unrelated to what's actually being voted on.

In the first four words of your post, you lost all credibility.

In the first four words of your post, you lost all credibility.

Actually the unions have discredited themselves with their typical union-like behavior. You guys have made this all have a very nasty vibe. Like I say, "typical unions".

I'm not the idiot in a union trying to hijack the city for selfish reasons.

That's all well and good, but it does leaves a key question unanswered ...
which idiot are you?
:sofa:

When people stop spending, the system starts to collapse in on itself.
That's exactly what's happening and will continue to happen. Do you think revenues over the next 12 months are going to change on a dime? We will continue to have short revenues.

This city depends on those to function. In every department not just Police and Fire. EVERY DEPARTMENT. WE will have to add some sort of Permanent Tax for CITY SERVICES to survive. That has to happen like it or not. That tax is coming. Whether MAPS passes or not.

If you live in Oklahoma county get ready. The city met with county commissioners yesterday and promised if they supported MAPS they'd support the JAIL tax.

The Feds have given the Sheriff a deadline. The JAIL has to be fixed or rebuilt immediately. The Feds are months from taking the Jail over entirely. A TAX has to be passed. If it's not done, then the Feds will do it and "Stick" the citizens with the bill...THAT'S a TAX. That has to be done.

SO GET READY!. MAPS TAX, Then PERMANENT CITY TAX, Then JAIL TAX.


Actually the unions have discredited themselves with their typical union-like behavior.
Unions? The Mayor won't even take questions in those meetings he boasts about. He just did a presentation and left. What a JOKE! That's not transparency. NO Debate! NO QUESTIONS! What a coward.

YOUR yes campaign and the Mayor stooped to new lows yesterday. They went from twisting and spinning to being LIARS. That's what I won't stand for and either should you. The say MAPS3 and Public Safety Issues aren't even related. I've heard that no less that 50 times on this site.

NO???? Then why are your commercials now saying, "MAPS will add Police and FIRE". THAT"S A LIE! That's where someone has to draw the line. I thought we were dumb to relate the issues. Now who's the FOOL?

That's never group I'll TRUST with my money. Twisting is disgusting enough. But flat out lying?

There are two proposals on the desk of the city Manager right now. One is to lose 34 officers. The other is to lose Fireman. That's something that's highly likely. I can't see how he can't implement both. So then where will we be? In another few months I'd imagine, we'll have to do the same thing unless something gives....LIKE ADDING ANOTHER PERMANENT TAX!


Reasons that happen to be unrelated to what's actually being voted on.

The above was for you. They are unrelated? THEN EXPLAIN THE COMMERCIAL???????????? Who's the Idiot?

So the use tax won't put more officers on the street?

MAPS 3 and city services are related in that MAPS 3 reinvests in the city to keep it competitive so it can maintain and increase the revenue streams that fund city services, like police and fire. They are not related in the way the opposition suggests that MAPS 3 is somehow an attack on city security funding. MAPS does not fund city services directly, but an increase in revenue generated by a more competitive city does equate to an increase in funds for city services.

The opposition is working against itself by trying to hold back the city from reinvesting in itself in a debt free manner. The reality is that to remain competitive you have to continue to reinvest in yourself to sustain the revenue stream. The same is true in any business. Say you want to hire more people in your business or more policeman in your city... well, you have to invest in your product or service in such a way that increases your revenue to cover the extra expense of those labor hires and/or raises. The unions want the city to simply pay more and hire more without trying to actually increase the revenue from which those funds come. That's a recipe for disaster. I'm not union basher, but you have to admit they usually don't have much management sense and are often perfectly willing to bite the hand that feeds until there's no food left and this is pretty much the same deal. You would think that they would be the first in line to support city improvements, because that's what generates more revenue for them.

That's all well and good, but it does leaves a key question unanswered ...
which idiot are you?
:sofa:

I'm the idiot that keeps believing The Pokes are going to take that next step to compete with OU and Texas. :doh:

Your council is in fantasyland | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/13085/a/5124/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADMAMAA4ADUA)

From the article...


What the people and local businesses need right now is a tax cut. Stimulate the
local economy...

Yeah, well, if tax cuts were a silver bullet, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. It's funny how many still want to sell that after we just had 8 years of tax cuts and now are in one of our deepest recessions.

Now, before the tebaggers flip out, I'm not saying tax cuts are bad and association does not prove causation, it's just that they clearly are in no way a sure fire "stimulator". You can cut costs and shrink your business in bad times, or you can reinvest and put yourself in better competitive position for the future. The best part is that we are one of the few communities with a chance to improve our community even during this down time. This will make Oklahoma City stronger with a chance to be more diversified than it has been at any point in its history. We are in a relatively better position than many communities, but the opposition seems to want to drag us down to everyone else's level.

Love Porter Davis' use of the word "bailout".

I was a tea party guy last April or whenever that was...I am a conservative.

But the tea party movement has veered sharply downwards, and some have incorporated the MAPS3 initiative into the tea party dialogue. Some friends and I attended the last "Tea Party Express" at the Capitol last month, and we all thought it was a joke. They brought some cheesy radio jingle entertainers who came up with some tea party songs, and they actually danced to them. Some fat dude walked on the podium with a basketball, and spewed some garbage that involved class warfare...making the rich richer etc.

When I read Davis' piece, I saw much of the same jargon thrown around to the tea party people...bailout...rich guys.

Needless to say, I am off the tea party wagon. I find it too difficult to stomach the newly married tea partiers/unioners.

From the article...

Yeah, well, if tax cuts were a silver bullet, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. It's funny how many still want to sell that after we just had 8 years of tax cuts and now are in one of our deepest recessions.

Now, before the tebaggers flip out, I'm not saying tax cuts are bad and association does not prove causation, it's just that they clearly are in no way a sure fire "stimulator". You can cut costs and shrink your business in bad times, or you can reinvest and put yourself in better competitive position for the future. The best part is that we are one of the few communities with a chance to improve our community even during this down time. This will make Oklahoma City stronger with a chance to be more diversified than it has been at any point in its history. We are in a relatively better position than many communities, but the opposition seems to want to drag us down to everyone else's level.

For tax cuts to become a "stimulator," the additional money-in-your-pocket must be spent. If you just bank it, the tax cut will do nothing but be a tax cut. MAPS will put money into the community and spent into the economy. Money from MAPS will be spent and respent several times through what is called the "velocity of money" so one can say it is our own local "stimulus" package but every penny of it will benefit our city. The projects will creat jobs and the facilities to be built will attract additional private investment dollars which will be spent again and again.

Let's reopen the public pools that the city has closed in the past few years due to lack of funding.

The pools were replaced with safer, easier to maintain spraygrounds. There are more of them than their were pools as well. Try again.


I'm sincere in the fact that despite the city proclaiming MAPS1 and M4K huge sucesses(which I don't dispute they were), it seems that NONE of the tax windfall created by the previous 2 MAPS programs made it into the restoration or even basic maintenance of the City outside of Downtown.

Ever been to the Plaza District? Paseo? Asian District? Uptown? Capitol Hill? North Western? Stockyards City?

From the article...



Yeah, well, if tax cuts were a silver bullet, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. It's funny how many still want to sell that after we just had 8 years of tax cuts and now are in one of our deepest recessions.

Now, before the tebaggers flip out, I'm not saying tax cuts are bad and association does not prove causation, it's just that they clearly are in no way a sure fire "stimulator". You can cut costs and shrink your business in bad times, or you can reinvest and put yourself in better competitive position for the future. The best part is that we are one of the few communities with a chance to improve our community even during this down time. This will make Oklahoma City stronger with a chance to be more diversified than it has been at any point in its history. We are in a relatively better position than many communities, but the opposition seems to want to drag us down to everyone else's level.

Porter has zero credibility. Just as other MAPS opponents have tried to provide numbers and failed at basic math, Davis does the same. He claims that the average family of four will pay $500/year.

Well lessee... $500/12(months) = $41.66 you'd be spending per month in Mr. Porter's own fantasy land on a penny sales tax. Move your decimal two places and you've got what he would think the average family of four would spend on qualifying purchases... for those of you reading who oppose MAPS [and clearly can't do basic arithmetic], that's $4166.00 per month or $49,992/year. Our median family income in OKC is about $60,000 according to CNN's stats. So that means Porter Davis thinks that the average OKC resident must only spend about $10K on housing, car loans, student loans, tuition cost, medical insurance, payments for services and other things which we don't pay sales tax on. Absurd.

So either Davis is reckless enough to write a letter to the Editor of the OKC Gazette without getting his facts straight or he's just a liar. Don't know which it is, but throwing the rest of the article out and just looking at that number provided me with some free entertainment this afternoon.

Silly jbrown, you think of the CBD as downtown, in purplemonkeythief's world, downtown begins at S 89th and goes up through NW 63rd.....

Glover, Porter, and others want to tell us that every family and every person spends the same amount on taxable items. They know better, but they are purposely misleading those who aren't smart enough to spend thirty seconds thinking it out.

Those "evil rich people" will pay most of it. I'm single, but my monthly spending (taxable or otherwise) is nowhere NEAR $4166/month.

Silly jbrown, you think of the CBD as downtown, in purplemonkeythief's world, downtown begins at S 89th and goes up through NW 63rd.....

Therein lies the problem....

No MAPS, no new jobs guaranteed. No federal monies for better mass transit. Fewer, smaller conventions means conventioeers money goes to other cities. Fewer visitors means less hotel and restaurant tax collected, as well as less sales tax for police and firemen. We used to call that cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

No MAPS, no new jobs guaranteed. No federal monies for better mass transit. Fewer, smaller conventions means conventioeers money goes to other cities. Fewer visitors means less hotel and restaurant tax collected, as well as less sales tax for police and firemen. We used to call that cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
:congrats::congrats::congrats:

The pools were replaced with safer, easier to maintain spraygrounds. There are more of them than their were pools as well. Try again.

The majority of those spraygrounds were located nowhere near the pools that were closed, the communities that used them and depended on them got nothing in return but a filled-in hole with maybe a jungle gym on top of it.

The ones that were closed in 2009 were closed because of a measly $30,000 lack of funding. Are you telling me that the highly successful MAPS and M4K couldn't cover $30,000 from the increased revenue they generated?

And if 3 public pools took 10k each, how the hell much is it going to cost to maintain these MAPS3 Aquatic centers that are going to be built??



Ever been to the Plaza District? Paseo? Asian District? Uptown? Capitol Hill? North Western? Stockyards City?

Ever been to Will Rogers Courts? Ambassador Courts? Prince Hall Village?
Apartments on NE 27-29 and MLK? Area of SW 29th and Portland? Classen Ten/Penn area? Sooner Haven? North Highlands?

How many times do we have to remind you that we can't fix every problem or revitalize every neighborhood at once?

I gave you a list of neighborhoods that have seen major improvements in the last 10 years that are not part of downtown.

As far as the spraygrounds go, I'm sorry you didn't get one in your favorite park. A lot of people, like those around Reed Park at 12th and May now have one that they didn't have before. But of course it's only about you.

The majority of those spraygrounds were located nowhere near the pools that were closed, the communities that used them and depended on them got nothing in return but a filled-in hole with maybe a jungle gym on top of it.

Man, you are picky. I can understand your frustration. You wanted pools in your neighborhood, you got spray grounds somewhere else. It's just so odd that you want to piss away a world class park, the beginnings of a rail system, a convention center that actually meets the needs of conventions, etc. etc., because you are upset about some very specific pools, their reuse as a playground, and the location of some spray grounds. I don't want to discount your frustration, but it just seems like a bizarre trade off.

I'm the idiot that keeps believing The Pokes are going to take that next step to compete with OU and Texas. :doh:

ROTFLOL - Well done sir
:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:


Oh, and sorry about the stompin last weekend ... sorta.

No MAPS, no new jobs guaranteed. No federal monies for better mass transit. Fewer, smaller conventions means conventioeers money goes to other cities. Fewer visitors means less hotel and restaurant tax collected, as well as less sales tax for police and firemen. We used to call that cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Wow, keep it up betts and I bet you'll find a way to blame the JFK assassination on a negative MAPS3 vote.


Those of us voting against MAPS3 are voting against a resolution that cannot generate the revenue being promised, and binds the city to do NONE of the projects it promises. No hysterics, no handwaving. Its a badly constructed initiative that spends too much money with no guarantees of accountability whatsoever. It goes directly against the "each project will stand on its own merits" promise that Mick Cornett made to the citizenry just a few months ago.

And if those who want to refute my position by waving the typical "you hate progress, you hate downtown, you hate all taxation, " along with whatever pigeonhole those who dare to oppose this croynism-laden boondoggle, please don't bother.

Oklahoma City will not magically turn in to a rancid dust ball if MAPS3 doesn't pass, although the mayor and pro-MAPS3 advocates would love for you to believe *precisely* that. It will send a message to city leadership that we want out of our leadership precisely what we would *demand* of any other entity whom we would entrust with significant monies. No one here would offer a blank check to a contractor in the "hopes" he'll "promise" to do "some really cool" things. You pay money, you expect it to be used precisely as promised. Yet the City says, in effect, "give us a blank check."

"You just hate the city, and you don't trust city government." In fact, I DO trust city government - to do precisely what they have done in the past. They have changed things like the Resolution of Intent to facilitate their own whimsy to enable the BassPro boondoggle of just a few years ago. And our own City Manager opined, and was backed legally, that "the City can always change its intent." And this city is setting up precisely this same structure as the sole means of governance for a $777 million blank check, not merely for a portion of the proceeds for a use tax. And they know they have the legal chops to do precisely that.

"You're anti-progress." Nonsense. I'm all for progress. But I'm not going to vote for a blank check merely because someone else tells me its "progress." I want accountability. This MAPS doesn't have it, and no amount of doubletalk or rationalization will change that fact. The tissue of promises that this MAPS embodies is the beginning and end of the commitment this city government is making to its people.

The virtual impossibility of this MAPS tax to generate the revenue it promises in turn guarantees that the eight projects in our beloved "Resolution of Intent" are, up front, not all going to be accomplished. The City can't not already know this. Some of those projects are sacrificial lambs, sauce on the goose to attract a broad base of support while serving as first in line to get cut. "But the City wouldn't do that?" Why not?

Everything I've understood about MAPS was that Chamber support was contingent upon the inclusion of a new convention center, yet a convention center is the one project among the many that polled *the worst* among OKC voters. They *knew* such a proposal wouldn't stand on its own. Yet Mayor Cornett promised *precisely* that. How do those reconcile? Short answer: They don't. The first MAPS served the City famously. This MAPS serves the well-connected.

The people on this board need to consider that there really are legitimate concerns about this MAPS round, and try to debate those issues on their face, rather than trying to use ad-hominem attacks and counterpunches that smack of intolerance and hatred merely for their opposition to a political position *you* support. I have read numerous posts here about MAPS3, and I understand that many here support it. I respect that position. I'm not going to sit here and start hurling names and prejudicial notions at people merely because they support MAPS and I don't. I think it only reasonable to expect the reverse. You may not like my aggressive opposition to MAPS3, but I do expect my position to be respected. I have established firm reasons for my position, and do not believe them to be arbitrary or capricious. I'm not opposing MAPS3 because its a penny-tax I don't want to pay, or because I don't want OKC to prosper. I want OKC to prosper, under the umbrella of smart business and intelligent government restraint. This MAPS offers neither. I tried to offer my suggestions to repackage MAPS in a palatable, controlled format to our mayor and council, and was dismissed.

I am a lifelong resident of Oklahoma City, and I supported the first two MAPS projects; the original 1993 version I supported enthusiastically, and the second version much less so because buildings weren't the core problem in OKC schools (and we're starting to see that reality emerge). This time, however, I simply cannot look past the holes in the dam because the Mayor and his contemporaries yell "PROGRESS."

-SoonerDave

FWIW, with the exception of the JFK crack, exceptionally well put.

Those who support the passage of MAPs3 would have a far tighter race on their hands if the style of advocacy utilized by you, andy and Larry for the NO side were more widely in play.

Sooner, your reasons are well founded. I don't agree with them, but you back up your stance intelligently.

Others, not so much. They aren't for progress in any way shape or form. They may latch onto some of your intelligent arguments (see iron's plagiarizing of Bob Waldrop in another thread), but they don't really care about those principles. They aren't making the choice to vote no because they feel it's best for the city, they are doing it because they are selfish.

I understand your reason, Sooner, I simply don't think you're going to be correct in this instance. And, I'm voting what my gut tells me, which is that this city knows it has to do what it says it will, or they'll never pass another MAPS initiative. Ever. The current mayor and the city council will have a stained legacy.

Unlike you, I think our mayor cares about the city, and I'm guaranteeing you he cares about his legacy. I happen to believe our city council members feel the same way. As I've said before, this costs me so incredibly little money personally that I think it's a worthwhile gamble. I feel like I'm buying a lottery ticket for $777 million dollars, with at least a 95% chance of winning. I like my odds.

In the perfect world, the ballot would have been different. Listening to Doug and Midtowner, it sounds like they and the city's legal team felt the ballot probably had to be written the way it was. So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

The big labor bosses use $120,000 of their hard-working members's money to lie about MAPS - and yet they ask the city to pay for staffers at their union halls. The only people who will win if MAPS loses is the Union bosses - not the firefighters or police. Check out the bosses' work at biglaborok. com Its pretty crazy if you ask me.

Preach it Sooner Dave! Preach it!

Unlike you, I think our mayor cares about the city, and I'm guaranteeing you he cares about his legacy.
You got that right. The Legacy that lines his pockets! :doh:

Unfortunately, his legacy and political career is going down the tubes with this MAPS. Along with the Political career of some of those on that horseshoe. :bright_id
I'd be a liar if I didn't admit I'll be getting a little kick out of watching him and a select few other go down in flames.

This CITY will survive and thrive. The politicians will be taught that the citizens of this City aren't stupid, no matter how many ads or commercials you run. No matter how many "half truths" you spew or how much money you have. The citizens of this City see through the bull.

Video #2 30 seconds - Accelerator YouTube - OKC Accelerate TAXES! Not This MAPS 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-wCOOEexO8)

u-wCOOEexO8

Have you included a proviso saying you don't have confirmatory data on your sales tax analysis? Hope so.

So the use tax won't put more officers on the street?

Yes and no. The use tax offer was only for an undetermined portion of the use tax for only the 1st two years of the 7.75 year tax. I don't have the numbers in front of me but if memory serves it would "add" 20 officers directly (but the No part is these aren't really new officers being added, it is officers not having to be cut in the upcoming across the board 2-3% department budget reductions. Another 7 would be added thru Federal monies (presumably, some sort of "matching" amount, otherwise what is stopping them from using Fed money now). Another No side to the answer is that according to the City's own budget reports and studies, manpower is short something like 200 officers and staffing levels are the same as they were 10 or more years ago. So even if the 20-27 officers are truly added, the City is still short 173-180 (mol).

This is a double (might become triple) post but given the multiple MAPS 3 threads here, I'll do it just the same. In another thread, I said the following, and I'll repeat it here:

One of the things that gets me in this is how some (not all) of the police and fire members in this forum (who, by and large, weren't active here at all until MAPS 3 reared its head and who may disappear just as quickly in the aftermath of the vote, however it goes) ... one of the things that gets me is how it was that the distinct possibility was held out by the unions that they could well do a turnabout and support MAPS 3 ... IF ... contract negotiations with the city were satisfactory, and those contract negotiations in no way included anything at all about the projects in MAPS 3, the total cost, or the tax duration.


Firefighters: In a November 10 Journal Record article, a quote from Phil Sipe appeared: "'To be completely open here, that's what we've been talking about. Once the (staffing) problem goes away, then I'd think the (MAPS 3) opposition would go away,' said Sipe, who heads the International Association of Firefighters Local 157. ¶ A resolution could be reached as early as Tuesday, he said." Later in the same article: "Sipe said that although he has told city officials that the MAPS 3 opposition could evaporate, it's not entirely up to him. ¶ 'That is one of the things that's really up to the membership. They're the ultimate authority here. If they're willing to reverse the previous stand they've taken and decide to rescind that original decision, then we're certainly willing to do a 180-degree turnaround and support it,' Sipe said." Link: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/journalrecord_2009_11_10-1.jpg

________
Police: Also on November 10 in a letter from James Moore, attorney representing the FOP, to Jim Couch: "The FOP is willing to get on board with MAPS 3 if a couple of things can be done." The letter specified those things. Link: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/fopletter_11_10.jpg

Translation:


UNIONS TO THE CITY: we are quite prepared to get behind MAPS and urge voters to VOTE YES.

otherwise ...
UNIONS TO THE PUBLIC: MAPS is wholly crappy. The projects are bad, the cost is too much, and the tax lasts too long. VOTE NO.

This just in from The Food & Drug Administration:
WARNING: Trying to figure out where SINCERITY lies in the above yes and/or no positions can cause headaches, sometimes vomiting, uncontrollable drooling, and in extreme cases suicidal thoughts. If any of these symptoms become apparent, a person should IMMEDIATELY (a) stop trying to reconcile the contradictory statements, (b) drive carefully to your nearest (not necessarily the least expensive ... time could be of the essence) local liquor store and purchase a supply of your elixir of choice, (c) drive on side streets to your home, avoiding heavy traffic routes so not to endanger others any more than is absolutely required, and, at your home and under the observation of at least one trusted family member or friend, (d) safely self-medicate for a responsible period of time. Women who are pregnant and others who have high blood pressure or pulmonary problems, or who have been exposed to additional excessive barrages of bullcrap, or those who have other conditions related to alcoholic beverages, or voters between the ages of 18 and 21, should NOT follow the above recommendation. For persons in those groups, no known solution exists. Sorry.
That is all and signing off. Fortunately for this reporter, I have on hand a proper elixir and do not have to leave my home at 12:46 a.m. only to discover that my nearest liquor store is closed for the night.

Listening to Doug and Midtowner, it sounds like they and the city's legal team felt the ballot probably had to be written the way it was. So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Do you have a link or the thread that was in, my reading of prior posts indicated the opposite was the case. May have missed updated posts where the position has changed. Thanks in advance.

This is from Urban Pioneer, but judging by his banter with Doug, that's where he got the information. Doug will have to confirm it, though. Still looking for the post from Midtowner. He's got a lot!


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.

This is from Urban Pioneer, but judging by his banter with Doug, that's where he got the information. Doug will have to confirm it, though. Still looking for the post from Midtowner. He's got a lot!
Urban Pioneer stated: "The "single-subject rule" means that you can't list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1".

Thats not exactly true. They could have listed the multiple projects on a single ballot as was done with MAPS 1 without violating the single-subject rule, the exception being, that each of the multiple projects would have required a separate vote. In MAPS 1 you had to vote for "all or none" of the multiple projects on a single ballot.

The fact of the matter is this. The Mayor and Council knew that a separate vote on each project would mean that certain projects would have been rejected. That is a fact, period. The Convention Center would have been rejected. The Chamber was not going to allow that to happen, and that's a fact.

Here is another fact. To call all of these multiple projects Capital Improvements so they could claim the ballot only contained a "single-subject", and then force the voter to vote for all or none, is a blatant circumvention the law, nothing more, or nothing less. Although this is a chicken **** tactic on the City's part, sadly to say it is most likely legal, but it should be criminal.