Im riding with my Police and Fireman buddies on this one. I was at the meeting, here is what was said. No plan, No specifics and no guarantees. These are my friends. Im sticking with them.

What absolutely puzzles me is anyone thinking there will be more jobs if MAPS doesn't pass. Certainly there will be no new construction or project related jobs. There is absolutely no guarantee there will be anymore jobs for firemen, and you lose the use tax. The best hope for increasing sales tax collection in the city, 3/4 of a cent of which goes to police and firemen is by creating more businesses and retail to collect it. MAPs not passing will hurt our local economy, which hurts us all.

I have five people I can call Monday and all I have to say is "vote yes for me on Tuesday for Maps 3," and they will drop whatever they are doing, and do it.

So five more votes the city never knew was coming for the cause. :dizzy:

Then there is my fiance and I. I told her to vote yes, and she will do so, just because she is my fiance, and we stand behind each other.

Oh and LOL at 1993 Tornado, and 1999 bombing. Nothing even happened in 1993. 1995 Bombing, and 1999 Tornado is what he meant.

YES!!!

Seriously?

The 1999 bombing?

The 1993 Tornado?

wow.

Not that I agree with his overall post but those two events have definitely helped shape our city and our thought processes of today. Except, wasn't it the 1993 bombing and the 1999 tornado? (smile)

Anyway, the bombing turned our attention from trying to vote taxes to give to corporations to locate in OKC. Thank God none of those went through. Instead, OKC turned to MAPS and started voting tax money on facilities for ourselves. What an incredible job has been done in the first 2 MAPS programs and what an economic effect its had on our city! What effect would money to American Airlines or the microchip plant (that never was built in SLC) have on our city? Secondly, OKC has had an amazing inferiority complex for many, many years. This complex still comes through with a lot of the posters on this site. The bombing showed the world we are tough people and a tough city and handled the bombing with great strength and a will to NOT let it get us down. Our leaders, our police and especially the fire, rescue and medical people were amazing and the world saw it.

The tornado hit OKC at a time when real estate prices in the city were incredibly depressed. There were parts of the city where home prices had hit 1950's levels. The tornado took so many homes off the market and so many people were displaced from their homes, the entire city's real estate market saw a boost in home values that is still with us today.

Vote YES!!!

We can deal with the REAL issues of public safety during the next election.

the next election. when is that. so next year fire and police can coime and ask for a 1 cent sales tax and you will give it to them. please. yes thats what i meant sorry it was late trying to get to bed whn i typed it.

The lady at teh city council meeting tuesday said it best. if we start being like chicago and new york we are going to have thier problems, their issues. the firefigters that get paid a hell of a lot more than down here so if you want to play big pay big.

the maypor is only telling part of teh sotry, he is lieing by omission. he ofreed a use tax, of 10% of teh use tax which only applies to items bought out fo the state. that is only 1 maybe 2 positions. sure it is better than nothing but being 50 short now and being another 39 short is still going to shut down fire engines and brush pumpers.

[QUOTE=tehvipir;276439]the next election. when is that. so next year fire and police can coime and ask for a 1 cent sales tax and you will give it to them. please. yes thats what i meant sorry it was late trying to get to bed whn i typed it.
QUOTE]

Sooner than you think if MAPS fails. They'll adjust it, repackage it and bring it out again quickly.

the next election. when is that. so next year fire and police can coime and ask for a 1 cent sales tax and you will give it to them. please. yes thats what i meant sorry it was late trying to get to bed whn i typed it.

The lady at teh city council meeting tuesday said it best. if we start being like chicago and new york we are going to have thier problems, their issues. the firefigters that get paid a hell of a lot more than down here so if you want to play big pay big.

the maypor is only telling part of teh sotry, he is lieing by omission. he ofreed a use tax, of 10% of teh use tax which only applies to items bought out fo the state. that is only 1 maybe 2 positions. sure it is better than nothing but being 50 short now and being another 39 short is still going to shut down fire engines and brush pumpers.

The use tax is not "1 maybe 2 positions" .. use tax generates $60 million. Why don't you learn the facts man?

the next election. when is that. so next year fire and police can coime and ask for a 1 cent sales tax and you will give it to them.

There may be a lot of pro-MAPS people who aren't going to be feeling very friendly towards the policemen and firemen if MAPS doesn't pass, and then there are the anti-tax people who won't give it to them. Politics makes strange bedfellows, as I've said before.

If you'd stop sending an entire fire truck full of firemen to every 911 call, in addition to the two EMS people, you'd probably have enough employees right now.

Policemen and firemen do get paid a lot more in New York, but have you looked at housing prices there? Cost of living affects wages. It's cheap to live in Oklahoma, so we all get paid less then people at comparable jobs in cities with higher cost of living.

Not that I agree with his overall post but those two events have definitely helped shape our city and our thought processes of today. Except, wasn't it the 1993 bombing and the 1999 tornado? (smile)

Anyway, the bombing turned our attention from trying to vote taxes to give to corporations to locate in OKC. Thank God none of those went through. Instead, OKC turned to MAPS and started voting tax money on facilities for ourselves. What an incredible job has been done in the first 2 MAPS programs and what an economic effect its had on our city! What effect would money to American Airlines or the microchip plant (that never was built in SLC) have on our city? Secondly, OKC has had an amazing inferiority complex for many, many years. This complex still comes through with a lot of the posters on this site. The bombing showed the world we are tough people and a tough city and handled the bombing with great strength and a will to NOT let it get us down. Our leaders, our police and especially the fire, rescue and medical people were amazing and the world saw it.

The tornado hit OKC at a time when real estate prices in the city were incredibly depressed. There were parts of the city where home prices had hit 1950's levels. The tornado took so many homes off the market and so many people were displaced from their homes, the entire city's real estate market saw a boost in home values that is still with us today.

The "wow" was because his history is off.

The Tornado he's probably referring to happened in 1999, and the bombing was in 1995.

Anyone that doesn't know those dates, doesn't know enough about our city to even have an opinion.

The use tax is not "1 maybe 2 positions" .. use tax generates $60 million. Why don't you learn the facts man?Will it generate $60 million in the first 18 months?

I have five people I can call Monday and all I have to say is "vote yes for me on Tuesday for Maps 3," and they will drop whatever they are doing, and do it.

So five more votes the city never knew was coming for the cause. :dizzy:

Then there is my fiance and I. I told her to vote yes, and she will do so, just because she is my fiance, and we stand behind each other.

Oh and LOL at 1993 Tornado, and 1999 bombing. Nothing even happened in 1993. 1995 Bombing, and 1999 Tornado is what he meant.

YES!!! Nothing even happened in 1993, how sure are you about that?

Does it really matter what happened in 1993 or whenever? The point was, Oklahoma City was such a nonentity of a city that no one took notice until we had a disaster worthy of ambulance chasing television networks.

We are still behind every other city I consider worth visiting. We have so much catching up to do that it's foolish to waste time. If we stop moving forward, we essentially backslide.

Does it really matter what happened in 1993 or whenever? The point was, Oklahoma City was such a nonentity of a city that no one took notice until we had a disaster worthy of ambulance chasing television networks.

We are still behind every other city I consider worth visiting. We have so much catching up to do that it's foolish to waste time. If we stop moving forward, we essentially backslide.Does it really matter? I don't know, I didn't bring it up, I just ask a question. Since your a mother I'll ask you. If it was your 4 day old little girl swept from her car seat into the flood waters of lightning creek never to be seen again, would you consider that something?

Does it really matter what happened in 1993 or whenever? The point was, Oklahoma City was such a nonentity of a city that no one took notice until we had a disaster worthy of ambulance chasing television networks.

We are still behind every other city I consider worth visiting. We have so much catching up to do that it's foolish to waste time. If we stop moving forward, we essentially backslide.You don't consider OKC a place worth visiting, yet you live here. That seems a bit odd. Does that mean you wouldn't consider living in a city worth visiting?

Does it really matter what happened in 1993 or whenever?

Yes, I was in the 6th grade when the bomb ripped several friends from this earth. Forgive me for being sensitive about the date. That's like saying you shouldn't remember the date you were born because the point is, you were born.

Will it generate $60 million in the first 18 months?

No, but it would be in the general neighborhood of 14 mil over 18 months. I suspect that is more than adequate to cover a position or two or three.

You don't consider OKC a place worth visiting, yet you live here. That seems a bit odd. Does that mean you wouldn't consider living in a city worth visiting?

Andy, I didn't move here by choice. If I could wave a magic wand, and I had to be honest I probably would move back to one of the places I came here from, were it that easy. I love the city, but it's much like loving your slightly homely, socially challenged little brother whom you want to teach how to do his hair, dance and wear better clothes. Because I've lived more interesting places with better mass transit, better downtowns, a city park, etc, I can also see the glaring needs we've got.

We may have a glaring need for firemen, but I also think you all are really badly organized and have tremendous waste of personnel. Plus, this election has nothing to do with firemen and policemen.

The fun of living here is watching things change. In cities that already have most of this stuff, it's just fun to live. I like renovating houses, and so probably what has kept me here has been the joy of seeing things get better. As I said elsewhere, I used to live on 24th street, and what's happening on 23rd is exciting. What's happening on Broadway and in Midtown is exciting. Devon's new tower is exciting. The prospect of finally getting mass transit and a downtown park, and all the development I know we'll see makes doing without many of those things for so long all worthwhile.

Yes, I was in the 6th grade when the bomb ripped several friends from this earth. Forgive me for being sensitive about the date. That's like saying you shouldn't remember the date you were born because the point is, you were born.

RedDirt, when they arrived at Children's hospital, I took care of two of the five (five I think, we only had two) children who made it out alive. But worse, I had to walk through the waiting room multiple times that day and see the faces of the parents whose children didn't make it out of that daycare alive. Faces silently begging you for hope, for information, terrified you would tell them they didn't need to be there. Those faces are engraved in my memory, but to me, the actual date is insignificant. What happened is important.

So, I didn't mean to sound dismissive of what happened. Personally, I just don't pay attention to dates. Probably an unconscious reaction to the fact that I have a terrible memory for them.

You don't consider OKC a place worth visiting, yet you live here. That seems a bit odd. Does that mean you wouldn't consider living in a city worth visiting?

Wow..could it be there are people who live in OKC or are from OKC who want it to become better?? Naaah..

The "wow" was because his history is off.

The Tornado he's probably referring to happened in 1999, and the bombing was in 1995.

Anyone that doesn't know those dates, doesn't know enough about our city to even have an opinion.

Hey, I accept the criticizm and should have known the bombing was 1995. I kind of had that in the back of my mind and should have verified it at the time. The bombing is true American history and a real turning point in the history of this city.

Wow..could it be there are people who live in OKC or are from OKC who want it to become better?? Naaah..Wow..could it be there are people who live in OKC that oppose this MAPS (who by the way were living here long before you were born) who want OKC to become better?? Naah.. Thats because Spartan etal say so.

No, but it would be in the general neighborhood of 14 mil over 18 months. I suspect that is more than adequate to cover a position or two or three. I know, and your right about the 14 mil. And 14 mil. would be better than nothing. However, the Mayor and the City's offer to use the use tax for staffing was for 18 months, not the 60 million dollars as was insinuated was my point, thats all. I just wanted to make sure we were spouting out the facts.

Wow..could it be there are people who live in OKC that oppose this MAPS (who by the way were living here long before you were born) who want OKC to become better?? Naah.. Thats because Spartan etal say so.

Well let's reshift this debate to be about what it's really over.

Andy, how do you propose we make OKC better? What can we do to bring more prosperity to OKC?

Well let's reshift this debate to be about what it's really over.

Andy, how do you propose we make OKC better? What can we do to bring more prosperity to OKC?

Spartan it's very simple, and I'm glad you ask. Let us vote for the projects we want for our City, and against those we don't. Majority rules. Then, as soon as they are completed bring us some more.

Instead as it stands now, some of us will be forced to vote NO on certain projects we like and support, to keep us from being forced to vote yes for those we don't.

Obviously there would be those who would vote yes no matter what, and the same could be said about those who would vote no, they would do so, no matter what. It has always been that way, and always will.

The ones I feel most sorry for are those who will sellout, hold their nose, and vote yes for the projects they don't like or support, in order to get those they do. Thats very sad.

I know which group I'm in. How about you, which group are you in?

I love the city, but it's much like loving your slightly homely, socially challenged little brother whom you want to teach how to do his hair, dance and wear better clothes. Because I've lived more interesting places with better mass transit, better downtowns, a city park, etc, I can also see the glaring needs we've got.
Quit pickin' on your sweet little brother! :beaten_fi

Quit pickin' on your sweet little brother! :beaten_fi

Actually, I want to help my little brother. He could use a few more dates!

Let's get a PUBLIC Debate! Each side can call the other's exaggerations out for what they think they are. Then the FACTS from each side.

What kind of ratings would that get? Every local viewer would watch and get to hear each sides issues. What's wrong with that? Then Let the folks vote.

IF it's so GREAT. Then put the info and FACTS before the people! It's because it only looks good in ONE sided commercials and ads. If the NO campaign had enough money for Commercials and ads. The vote would clearly be 70% NO or better. Lucky for you.

Can someone explain why YOUR YES side won't do that?:poke:

Spartan it's very simple, and I'm glad you ask. Let us vote for the projects we want for our City, and against those we don't. Majority rules. Then, as soon as they are completed bring us some more.

Instead as it stands now, some of us will be forced to vote NO on certain projects we like and support, to keep us from being forced to vote yes for those we don't.

Obviously there would be those who would vote yes no matter what, and the same could be said about those who would vote no, they would do so, no matter what. It has always been that way, and always will.

The ones I feel most sorry for are those who will sellout, hold their nose, and vote yes for the projects they don't like or support, in order to get those they do. Thats very sad.

I know which group I'm in. How about you, which group are you in?


I like the fact they are all together. It is very hard for any single project to get 50% of the vote. I've said this before but if the original MAPS was voted on by project what would we have ended up with? We surely wouldn't have a Ford Center, Oklahoma River or Canal.

Also, what about MAPS for Kids, should each school stand on their own vote? Of course, MAPS has always been about the total sum of the package.

Let's get a PUBLIC Debate! Each side can call the other's exaggerations out for what they think they are. Then the FACTS from each side.

What kind of ratings would that get? Every local viewer would watch and get to hear each sides issues. What's wrong with that? Then Let the folks vote.

IF it's so GREAT. Then put the info and FACTS before the people! It's because it only looks good in ONE sided commercials and ads. If the NO campaign had enough money for Commercials and ads. The vote would clearly be 70% NO or better. Lucky for you.

Can someone explain why YOUR YES side won't do that?:poke:


Who would the No side send out to debate? Porter Davis, the guy that moved to the mountains for Y2K or Steve Hunt? The FOP leader hasn't exactly been the most articulate guy either.

Let's get a PUBLIC Debate! Each side can call the other's exaggerations out for what they think they are. Then the FACTS from each side.

What kind of ratings would that get? Every local viewer would watch and get to hear each sides issues. What's wrong with that? Then Let the folks vote.

IF it's so GREAT. Then put the info and FACTS before the people! It's because it only looks good in ONE sided commercials and ads. If the NO campaign had enough money for Commercials and ads. The vote would clearly be 70% NO or better. Lucky for you.

Can someone explain why YOUR YES side won't do that?:poke:

First, the debate is public. Both sides have been able to articulate their messages on the internet and in the media. What purpose would a Lincoln-Douglas style debate actually serve? Both sides have their talking points and at the root of those talking points are fundamental disagreements which simply can't be worked out.

Second, and more cynically, the pro-MAPS side has a much larger war chest. The local media has given them decidedly one-sided support. They're having no problems getting their message out. The anti-MAPS folks have about half the cash, have not been successful at all in fundraising and absent a letter to the editor in the Gazette (which was buttressed by a pro-MAPS letter by Wayne Coyne on one side and a MAPS is awesome article on the other), the anti-MAPS message is not being given space, ink or time. Why on Earth would the pro-MAPS folks actually assist their opponents in communicating to the public when the media have made said communication darn near impossible.

I'm all for public debate, but what you'd have on both sides here is simply a recital of stale talking points with not a lot of actual discussion and interaction. It'd probably end up being a waste of time for both sides if one thought that it had ideas which could actually prevail.

I like the fact they are all together. It is very hard for any single project to get 50% of the vote. I've said this before but if the original MAPS was voted on by project what would we have ended up with? We surely wouldn't have a Ford Center, Oklahoma River or Canal.

Also, what about MAPS for Kids, should each school stand on their own vote? Of course, MAPS has always been about the total sum of the package.OSUFan, if a single project can't muster up 50% plus 1 that would tell me that it probably got what it deserved. With all due respect how can you, me, or anyone else stand here 16 years after the fact and speculate which of the MAPS 1 projects would have passed or failed?

Who would the No side send out to debate? Porter Davis, the guy that moved to the mountains for Y2K or Steve Hunt? The FOP leader hasn't exactly been the most articulate guy either. If the NO side doesn't have a worthy opponent to send to a debate then what are the yes folks waiting on? I would think the lion would love the chance to slaughter a lamb.

OSUFan, if a single project can't muster up 50% plus 1 that would tell me that it probably got what it deserved. With all due respect how can you, me, or anyone else stand here 16 years after the fact and speculate which of the MAPS 1 projects would have passed or failed?

Andy, you're whistling past the graveyard. In the future, a public-safety tax (with raises for cops and firemen and additional personnel) may have to be bundled with something more popular for passage.

Frankly, I would be surprised if the voters would favor such a pay raise right now, given the fact that virtually all other public and private sector workers are looking at pay cuts, furloughs and understaffing -- regardless of where they work.

I would love to see this polled. I bet those of you on your scorched-earth mission to hold all of the citizens of OKC hostage for your own employment complaints would probably be surprised, and dispirited, by the results.

Spartan it's very simple, and I'm glad you ask. Let us vote for the projects we want for our City, and against those we don't. Majority rules. Then, as soon as they are completed bring us some more.

Instead as it stands now, some of us will be forced to vote NO on certain projects we like and support, to keep us from being forced to vote yes for those we don't.

Obviously there would be those who would vote yes no matter what, and the same could be said about those who would vote no, they would do so, no matter what. It has always been that way, and always will.

The ones I feel most sorry for are those who will sellout, hold their nose, and vote yes for the projects they don't like or support, in order to get those they do. Thats very sad.

I know which group I'm in. How about you, which group are you in?

Alright, fair enough Andy. I agree that the all-or-nothing nature of MAPS is a bit consternating for all of us. Here's the reality though: If it's not all-or-nothing, then special interest groups behind each project will nitpick until the point that NO special projects happen. That's why MAPS is an altogether proposition, because it builds consensus, instead of encouraging jockeying.

Here's an example: I know that if it were an up or down vote on each item, I would vote down EVERYTHING except the downtown streetcar, just in order to make sure that the streetcar gets more votes than other items. The reality though is that we CAN afford to do all of the above, so that's what we should do. We should come together and move forward as a city altogether (holding hands real cute). Streetcar proponents, convention center hawks, fairgrounds advocates, downtown park enthusiasts -- all of us, should get our cake, then get to eat it too.

MAPS 1 also had items that I didn't like. I wouldn't have wanted to pay for the crappy downtown trolleys (that was money wasted) or the Fairground improvements. I just don't see the value in the millions and millions and millions of dollars we keep flushing down the toilet by investing in the Fairgrounds all the damn time, with MAPS, with a dedicated hotel/motel tax, with MAPS 3, and so on.. lord knows it's not bringing anything new to the table, but oh well.

Also at first I thought that the senior centers were a horrible idea and another lame money waste. In hindsight, and now that I've gotten to think it over some more, it's a great project. Seniors deserve something just for them, especially since the elderly population is about to balloon, and this is really more of a public health initiative designed to help people get active. I think that it's really the equivalent of a downtown park or streetcar system for elderly people: the senior centers will give seniors the opportunity to live a more active lifestyle, just as the downtown initiatives give the rest of us a shot at a more active lifestyle, and you can't put a price tag on that.

Andy, I think it is common knowledge that many if not most of the projects from the original MAPS were not very popular individually. If I speaking out of line stop me. It is the whole of package that was popular (at least over 50% popular).

When I think about the projects it seems to me that the park is a hard sell by itself but if included with a transit system and a convention center makes sense. Likewise I feel the same way about a transit system with the current downtown area and no park and current convention center. I do think we should have a new convention center but probably wouldn't support it without the park and the transit system.

I could imagine limiting MAPS 3 to just those projects. But I can understand the value of the other projects. I am very doubtful they could stand on their own though. So I have little trouble seeing them as part of this package. I do view all of these things as working together for the benefit of the entire community that makes up Oklahoma City.

If each individual project were voted on separately none of the projects would pass.

The all or nothing makes sense, because most of the projects are going to compliment each other. The street car is going to tie it all together and put a bow on top, and I'm actually against the street car. But I understand the necessity of it with all the other projects going up.

Andy, you're whistling past the graveyard. In the future, a public-safety tax (with raises for cops and firemen and additional personnel) may have to be bundled with something more popular for passage.

Frankly, I would be surprised if the voters would favor such a pay raise right now, given the fact that virtually all other public and private sector workers are looking at pay cuts, furloughs and understaffing -- regardless of where they work.

I would love to see this polled. I bet those of you on your scorched-earth mission to hold all of the citizens of OKC hostage for your own employment complaints would probably be surprised, and dispirited, by the results. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a retaliation effort by a group of fine Citizens.

If each individual project were voted on separately none of the projects would pass.

The all or nothing makes sense, because most of the projects are going to compliment each other. The street car is going to tie it all together and put a bow on top, and I'm actually against the street car. But I understand the necessity of it with all the other projects going up. None, not a one of them would pass, do you have a crystal ball?

None, not a one of them would pass, do you have a crystal ball?
Red Dirt might not have any, but I have quite a collection of them. Problem is, none of them work.

When I think about the projects it seems to me that the park is a hard sell by itself but if included with a transit system and a convention center makes sense. Likewise I feel the same way about a transit system with the current downtown area and no park and current convention center. I do think we should have a new convention center but probably wouldn't support it without the park and the transit system.

I could imagine limiting MAPS 3 to just those projects. But I can understand the value of the other projects. I am very doubtful they could stand on their own though. So I have little trouble seeing them as part of this package. I do view all of these things as working together for the benefit of the entire community that makes up Oklahoma City.

They're all interconnected. Excellent point, flintysooner.

They're all interconnected. Excellent point, flintysooner.

And I agree, very good point.

None, not a one of them would pass, do you have a crystal ball?

No but it's something that was talked about in a policy class I took 3-4 years ago. It's a voting tendency that humans have. Like Duverger's law, the voting system put into place has a lot to do with the ultimate outcome of the vote.


With project policy, everyone has their favorite project and special interest groups dont really have enough money to push their project like a group effort campaign would. This means that smear campaigns would have a far easier time discrediting the projects in a divide and conquer approach.

The average voter would be so turned off of most of the projects that they would have one maybe two favorites that directly benefit them, and a large group those they don't care for. Shouldn't have to run the math on that to know that means that there would be far more no votes on every project than yes votes since the support would be concentrated.

You guys can day dream about alternatives to the blanket vote, but the reality is all, or nearly all of the projects would fail. Maybe a few would pass, but it's not likely.

They're all interconnected. Excellent point, flintysooner.

But the problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, this all-or-nothing approach (to inter-connected but unrelated/not "like-kind" projects) is illegal. The "genius" (as some have described it) of MAPS, was that it was also illegal (but not challenged). The could have presented MAPS 3 in a legal fashion. They deliberately chose not to do so. Why? According to the Mayor, the Council decided to use the illegal all-or-nothing format because it is what voters are used to.

WTF? That's the excuse for doing it illegally? That doesn't bode well for the trust many are placing that everything is going to get done (even when there is NOTHING that binds them to do so).

Separate propositions, not necessarily 8 ones, but at least grouping "like-kind" ones together, similar to what was done in the 2007 General Obligation and School bond issues. 14 separate propositions in the GO bond and EVERY one of them passed easily. Same with the School bond issue. Can't remember which one (maybe both) but EVERY proposition passed something like 80%! No guarantee of course, there was the Tinker bond, where some props passed and some failed. If the Tinker one had been all-or-nothing, the unpopular ones may have easily pulled down the whole measure. If memory serves, the Tinker part barely passed.

Voters are used to separate proposition format too. Obviously, they don't get "confused" by having to vote on more than one thing.

If the NO side doesn't have a worthy opponent to send to a debate then what are the yes folks waiting on? I would think the lion would love the chance to slaughter a lamb.

Nope, sometimes they prefer tastier prey, or bigger prey. Sometimes, unlike some critters, a lion can even show mercy.

But the problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, this all-or-nothing approach (to inter-connected but unrelated/not "like-kind" projects) is illegal. The "genius" (as some have described it) of MAPS, was that it was also illegal (but not challenged). The could have presented MAPS 3 in a legal fashion. They deliberately chose not to do so. Why? According to the Mayor, the Council decided to use the illegal all-or-nothing format because it is what voters are used to.

WTF? That's the excuse for doing it illegally? That doesn't bode well for the trust many are placing that everything is going to get done (even when there is NOTHING that binds them to do so).

That's not true. There is a binding resolution. You keep forgetting that. The binding resolution is what directs what the MAPS 3 tax will be used for. You're going to say that the resolution can be changed at any time, which is true, but let's be honest.. it isn't going to be changed by anyone who wants to be reelected.

As for MAPS not being legal, it was legal the first time, then state law banned omnibus propositions (which is stupid) so here we have the current format. Thanks to the new state law we can't do MAPS like we did the first one, instead we have to vaguely mention capital improvement projects and use a binding resolution as the backbone of the MAPS 3 plan instead.

So out one side of your mouth, Larry, you are arguing that MAPS 3 doesn't say anything specific about the projects, then you're saying that it's illegal out the other side of your mouth. Really what you want is to have the MAPS projects listed separately and voted on separately. You're never going to get that. MAPS is not a check one kind of proposition. It's not even a check 2 out of 3 kind of proposition. MAPS is an all of the above kind of proposition. The city moves together forward, either we have projects for everyone, or projects for nobody. Period. This is how we build a consensus as a community on moving forward.

That's not true. There is a binding resolution. You keep forgetting that. The binding resolution is what directs what the MAPS 3 tax will be used for. You're going to say that the resolution can be changed at any time, which is true, but let's be honest.. it isn't going to be changed by anyone who wants to be reelected.

Sorry but as has been reported in the Oklahoman NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/maps-3-ballot-wont-detail-individual-projects/article/3415497)
MAPS 3 ballot won’t detail individual projects (11/8/09) and several times on these boards, the Resolution of Intent is NON-BINDING.


The ordinance council members passed in September to set the Dec. 8 vote was bundled with a resolution outlining how to spend the $777 million the sales tax would be expected to generate. Resolutions are nonbinding and can be overturned by a city council vote.

The "bundled" part makes it sound like there is something in the Ballot/Ordinance that references the Resolution, there isn't. Not one mention or reference. There could have been, but there isn't. Since they are non-binding it doesn't even really matter if they can be over turned at a later date.


As for MAPS not being legal, it was legal the first time, then state law banned omnibus propositions (which is stupid) so here we have the current format. Thanks to the new state law we can't do MAPS like we did the first one, instead we have to vaguely mention capital improvement projects and use a binding resolution as the backbone of the MAPS 3 plan instead.

It doesn't really matter if it was a new state law, interpretation of an existing state law or State constitution or interpretation there of. Point is it is illegal to do it that way (stupid or not, that is the law). Backbone? How about spineless since the Resolution is not mentioned or even referenced in the Ballot/Ordinance? How does slapping an overly broad "capital improvement" label (to projects that aren't related, the C.C., Mass Trans, Fairgrounds, then the rest Health/Wellness) solve that? Seems to be an even more egregious violation, not less. It was illegal then but no one challenged it. This too was brought out in the Oklahoman article.


The first MAPS ballot in 1993 listed each of the proposed projects in a single-question, all-or-nothing proposition, but that ballot may have been improper, according to numerous attorneys. A state law commonly referred to as the single subject rule forbids cities from asking voters to approve one tax for multiple purposes. Voters must vote on tax-funded projects one project at a time. "Someone probably could have challenged the original MAPS as violating the single subject rule, but no one really did,” said City Attorney Kenny Jordan.

According to those in the know on these boards, by trying to solve the anti-log rolling part, they ran smack dab into the being specific part of the law. Although they used great verbiage there really isn't anything specific about the language in the Ballot/Ordinance (again, the resolution is NON-BINDING).

Here is what is defined as a capital improvement in the Ordinance 23,942:


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

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

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

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

It goes on list all the other ways the money can be spent, but the point of the above definition, is that very little wouldn't qualify.


So out one side of your mouth, Larry, you are arguing that MAPS 3 doesn't say anything specific about the projects, then you're saying that it's illegal out the other side of your mouth.

Thats all true, where is the one side, other side?


Really what you want is to have the MAPS projects listed separately and voted on separately.

Yes, of course, have said that all along. And it is the legal way to do it.


You're never going to get that. MAPS is not a check one kind of proposition. It's not even a check 2 out of 3 kind of proposition. MAPS is an all of the above kind of proposition. The city moves together forward, either we have projects for everyone, or projects for nobody. Period. This is how we build a consensus as a community on moving forward.

Why then do we have separate propositions on other ballots? Why was the 2007 bond issue set up with 14 separate propositions (with like-kind projects grouped together as one)? Why did ALL of the separate propositions pass easily? Why did we have separate propositions on the 2007 School Bond issue? Why did ALL of them pass easily? May have been one or both of those elections, but they passed with an 80% approval rate.


The intent of the single subject rule is to avoid combining unrelated projects in a ballot, which can force people to vote for something they may not support in order to get something they do support, Spiropoulos said. The city’s alternative to the all-or-nothing MAPS 3 ballot, Jordan said, was one that included each of the proposed projects as separate propositions requiring separate votes.

Why did they use the illegal all or nothing format again? Will let the Mayor answer that:

Mayor Mick Cornett has said council members decided against separate propositions for MAPS 3 projects because city voters are accustomed to the all-or-nothing approach, which was used for MAPS and MAPS for Kids.

Completely ignores the fact that the City uses the separate proposition format (with success). It completely ignores the fact that it is most likely illegal to do it with the all-or-nothing way.

One of the things that I don't understand is why anyone here is still going to great lengths to try to make pernts, either way! Especially when they are all OLD PERNTS! I mean, is there anyone here who doubts that everyone here has already decided how they'll be voting tomorrow???

If one is looking for undecideds, one should probably be out knocking doors.

Why keep on keepin' on?

Because as evidenced by Spartan's post, there is still misinformation going around.

According to your theory, then, Larry, this discussion will never have an end and will go on indefinitely unless/until you are able to persuade everyone to agree with you or something like that. I'm kinda getting the idea that the possibility might not displease you. If you don't like what Spartan (or others) have to say, add him/them to your ignore post and find something else to obsess about. This particular dog is more than brutally dead. I say this humbly since I received a diagnosis back in 1981 from a respected health care professional (and one who I credit as being one of my life's benefactors ... those people you can count on the fingers of one hand) as being, "a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes to filter his sh*t in all sorts of possible ways." That diagnosis was in 1981. It was valid then and still is. I have possibly learned a bit about (a) when discussion becomes pointless, then why not stop? and (b) if it is pointless and I don't stop, then what does that say about me? There is a (c) and I'll leave that for you conjure the question and then answer it for yourself.

In the meantime, I've put in a frantic order for a silk-threaded noose so that when I hang myself (reference: movie Airplane) it won't hurt quite as much. I'm a pansy. Problem: delivery is estimated at 2 weeks. Uh oh, what's a mother to do?

And, yes, Spartan could do his part to end this endless cycle by stopping, too. Nothing to be gained. The MAPS 3 debate is done. Doesn't everyone get that fact?

I'm not even going to read any of Larry's post because simple logic seems to be lost on him. Larry, I understand your obsessive need to make things seem right to you. I understand you're a pretty fair guy. I just don't agree with how overtly you dwell on semantics.

I say this humbly since I received a diagnosis back in 1981 from a respected health care professional (and one who I credit as being one of my life's benefactors ... those people you can count on the fingers of one hand) as being, "a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes to filter his sh*t in all sorts of possible ways." That diagnosis was in 1981. It was valid then and still is.This actually made reading posts here this morning worthwhile all by itself.