Got done watching the taped replay late last night and a couple of things to note.

Substation:
The City Manager mentioned a stacked stone appearing "screen", that he thought they could wrap it for about $300 to $400K. He went on to say there is the issue of transmission lines and the total cost of dealing with them and the screen could be done for about $5 million. He also stated that he thought the cost of moving the substation shouldn't be born entirely by the City and/or MAPS 3 but the cost should be shared by OG&E. However, that was something that would have to be negotiated. Shadid said the $30 million is a much lower figure than the $70 to $100 million OG&E put it at in Aug of 2009 (election was Dec 2009).

Part of Convention Center budget or not?
Lots of discussion on that one. Couch said that some of the campaign materials mentioned $280 million. Think he is mistaken, as every campaign material or article I read where the Convention Center cost was mentioned (after MAPS 3 was announced), the $280 million number was used. The only instance I can find where the $250 million was mentioned as what was needed for the Tier II status was in the Chamber's C.C. study and the Mayor cited that figure in a short Q&A blurb pre-announcement (Oklahoman, 3/11/09) about that study ($250 to $400 million, divided up into Phase 1 & 2)

Less money in the budget means smaller facility
The consultant stated of the 3 options the Council was considering:

$250MM = 470,000 sf
$265MM = 500,000 sf
$280MM = 530,000 sf

Oooops, too small...the Chambers C.C. study stated 570,000 sf was needed in Phase 1, their 2 year old figure was $250 million for that. Based on the info presented above, to get the 570,000 sf needed, the C.C. budget needs to be around $300 million. Or $50 million more than what was just approved by the Council. Doesn't count the other $50 million "elephant in the room" either.

Interesting sidenote but moot now since they probably aren't going to move it...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20100826/ai_n54994381/
Mayor Cornett: Convention center location not certain, but substation must be moved
(Journal Record, August 26, 2010)

But the property on which the substation sits, as well as a building where several of the utility's information technology employees work, now is not mapped for the new convention center.
...
"There are a lot of variables within what those costs would be. Keep in mind that this is about much more than a substation," Alford said.

"We have a physical building that houses people, an IT (information technology) infrastructure, that would need to be relocated," he said. "That is the greater cost when you look at this project. Relocating a substation is a rather routine operation for us."

Contingency costs are included in each project's budget?
This was the first time I had heard this. I don't recall anyone on these threads that are involved in the process and/or on particular sub committees ever mentioning it. The consultant mentioned it and Councilman Ryan stated this was the case.

What amounts are already built into the each of the MAPS 3 projects?

Apparently not enough contingency money is in the budgets otherwise there should have been enough to still get 57 miles of Trails rather than the 32 they expect now.

Oh, by the way, the City's site STILL has the C.C. listed as $280 million
http://www.okc.gov/maps3/conventioncenter.html

Well I guess I was a little too hard on the Oklahoman yesterday about their convention center article because this morning I made a comment on a Barry Trammel article and I got a message that it has to be approved first.

Larry ... i believe that there was a 3 percent contingency inside each project .. and there is a 3 percent overall contingency ...


i am not sure that the selected CC site is still a good choice based on the economics of the idea

... Who really knows right now whether we can get a cc hotel with subsidies of one dollar or 50 million dollars, or at all. People take positions based on their personal bias. If you basically don't want, don't use, and don't support the idea of updating our cc, then you will object to just about all parts of it and will suppose that those that do want it are more stupid than you or are corrupt (otherwise they would surely see it your way).

All in all, Maps1 has been HUGELY successful and the citizens certainly got their money's worth. History and the present show that to be true. The attempt to characterize it otherwise is just a refusal to accept reality. To continue to ascribe evil to the current projects because there were cost overruns in Maps1 is misguided.

The ones refusing to accept reality are those that are the apologists for what happened back then and continue to happen to this day. These projects are not "evil". The only "evil" I ascribe is to the process of lying & deception employed by those those to get what they want. The blatant disregard towards the legal & ethical way of doing things. Rationalize it all you want, what you are advocating is that the end justifies the means. I disagree.

Was MAPS successful? No doubt. It generated far ore in development than projected (even using the inaccurate lowest number). Yet even with that, the Chamber can't seem to stop with inflating the numbers. they included things that have absolutely no relation to MAPS as part of the impact (like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial). They had at least 3 sets of numbers, adding billions to the economic impact, even on the same web page. No one disputes that it was successful. If $1 billion sounds good, lets just say MAPS lead to $2 billion or even more. The implication is that if we go ahead with MAPS 3 and the 3/4 billion public "investment" we will see the same rate of return we saw with the original MAPS.

If the Ballot had been presented with separate projects or even categories of "like-kind" projects, I think I would have voted for every single one. If the Ballot or Ordinance had even mentioned the projects, that would have helped. I did not support the process, the clearly illegal, vague Ballot & Ordinance. I supported most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects (I didn't with the original).

I was one of the few that supported the C.C. I saw the value in it. While I didn't believe the inflated numbers the Chamber put out there, I saw it as primarily new money coming into the economy and that can only be a good thing. After the vote, the Chamber admitted that it wasn't that case at all. This is what they recently admitted (and JTF was trying to tell us all along): 2/3 of the events are local which means they are most likely going to continue. That leaves 1/3 as non-local, so while still new money, not near what they mischaracterized it to be pre-vote. They continue to claim that the jobs & revenue generated will increase 3-fold (300%) by a new C.C. Quick-n-dirty math indicates that it will mean that minority 1/3 business will have to increase 9-fold or 900% to achieve the jobs /revenue promises. Does that seem likely to you? Especially for a C.C. that we are now going to build smaller than what was indicated pre-vote? A facility that doesn't meet the current needs of the lady that spoke on behalf of the C.C. at one of the Breaking Through luncheons?

As far as who knows what the C.C. hotel public subsidy is going to be? You are right, we won't know for sure until after it happens, but the folks over at the Urban Land Institute stated it isn't going to happen without it. I haven't heard any of the C.C. supporters remotely suggest the C.C. won't be viable without the unfunded C.C. hotel. The Chamber's report indicated it wasn't going to happen on its own. It even suggested the City own it 100%. Estimated cost of the hotel = the C.C. itself. The amount of subsidy seems to be the question, not if a subsidy is going to happen. IIRC, The $50 million figure was midrange of what the ULI folks suggested. It could be less, but history is replete with far more examples of costs exceeding estimates.

However, the issue of the hotel is now going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later due to the fact that the C.C. has been moved up in the timeline. The ULI strongly suggested that they open at the same time but no later than 6 months apart. everyone seems to be in agreement that for the C.C. to be viable, a C.C. hotel is essential.

The voting public seems to be starting to see through the spin, half-truths and in some cases out right lies as MAPS 3 barely passed (almost to the same exact percentage of the original). If the City ever wants a MAPS 4 to happen, they are going to have to adhere to the promises made or somehow spin their way out of it. They aren't very good at the first, while quite adept at the second.

I guess it all comes down to this. Was the Arena built to NBA/NHL specification? Yep. Was it built to Thunder specifications? Nope. Were voters told about convention hotel or the $30 million substation? Nope. What do you want to do about it?

I guess it all comes down to this. Was the Arena built to NBA/NHL specification? Yep. Was it built to Thunder specifications? Nope. Were voters told about convention hotel or the $30 million substation? Nope. What do you want to do about it?

Some will just do their normal moaning, groaning and complaining, of course you have to consider that the same ones complaining and are negative about anything OKC does.

Some will just do their normal moaning, groaning and complaining, of course you have to consider that the same ones complaining and are negative about anything OKC does.

I agree with you completely rcjunkie, people need to quit thinking negative about OKC and think positive.

I think most people are very happy with MAPS 1 and I think they're satisfied with the arena situation. Most voters have enough common sense to realize you don't get something for nothing, and that we got what we could afford. I sense a general satisfaction with what we've gotten for what we've spent, especially since it includes an NBA team. There are cities who've spent more than we did on an arena and have no team. Since we're far from finishing MAPS 3, let's see what we get for our money and put a hold on complaining until we're sure we didn't get what we paid for.

I think most people are very happy with MAPS 1 and I think they're satisfied with the arena situation. Most voters have enough common sense to realize you don't get something for nothing, and that we got what we could afford. I sense a general satisfaction with what we've gotten for what we've spent, especially since it includes an NBA team. There are cities who've spent more than we did on an arena and have no team. Since we're far from finishing MAPS 3, let's see what we get for our money and put a hold on complaining until we're sure we didn't get what we paid for.

Amen

The ones refusing to accept reality are those that are the apologists for what happened back then and continue to happen to this day. These projects are not "evil". The only "evil" I ascribe is to the process of lying & deception employed by those those to get what they want. The blatant disregard towards the legal & ethical way of doing things. Rationalize it all you want, what you are advocating is that the end justifies the means. I disagree.

Was MAPS successful? No doubt. It generated far ore in development than projected (even using the inaccurate lowest number). Yet even with that, the Chamber can't seem to stop with inflating the numbers. they included things that have absolutely no relation to MAPS as part of the impact (like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial). They had at least 3 sets of numbers, adding billions to the economic impact, even on the same web page. No one disputes that it was successful. If $1 billion sounds good, lets just say MAPS lead to $2 billion or even more. The implication is that if we go ahead with MAPS 3 and the 3/4 billion public "investment" we will see the same rate of return we saw with the original MAPS.

If the Ballot had been presented with separate projects or even categories of "like-kind" projects, I think I would have voted for every single one. If the Ballot or Ordinance had even mentioned the projects, that would have helped. I did not support the process, the clearly illegal, vague Ballot & Ordinance. I supported most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects (I didn't with the original).

I was one of the few that supported the C.C. I saw the value in it. While I didn't believe the inflated numbers the Chamber put out there, I saw it as primarily new money coming into the economy and that can only be a good thing. After the vote, the Chamber admitted that it wasn't that case at all. This is what they recently admitted (and JTF was trying to tell us all along): 2/3 of the events are local which means they are most likely going to continue. That leaves 1/3 as non-local, so while still new money, not near what they mischaracterized it to be pre-vote. They continue to claim that the jobs & revenue generated will increase 3-fold (300%) by a new C.C. Quick-n-dirty math indicates that it will mean that minority 1/3 business will have to increase 9-fold or 900% to achieve the jobs /revenue promises. Does that seem likely to you? Especially for a C.C. that we are now going to build smaller than what was indicated pre-vote? A facility that doesn't meet the current needs of the lady that spoke on behalf of the C.C. at one of the Breaking Through luncheons?

As far as who knows what the C.C. hotel public subsidy is going to be? You are right, we won't know for sure until after it happens, but the folks over at the Urban Land Institute stated it isn't going to happen without it. I haven't heard any of the C.C. supporters remotely suggest the C.C. won't be viable without the unfunded C.C. hotel. The Chamber's report indicated it wasn't going to happen on its own. It even suggested the City own it 100%. Estimated cost of the hotel = the C.C. itself. The amount of subsidy seems to be the question, not if a subsidy is going to happen. IIRC, The $50 million figure was midrange of what the ULI folks suggested. It could be less, but history is replete with far more examples of costs exceeding estimates.

However, the issue of the hotel is now going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later due to the fact that the C.C. has been moved up in the timeline. The ULI strongly suggested that they open at the same time but no later than 6 months apart. everyone seems to be in agreement that for the C.C. to be viable, a C.C. hotel is essential.

The voting public seems to be starting to see through the spin, half-truths and in some cases out right lies as MAPS 3 barely passed (almost to the same exact percentage of the original). If the City ever wants a MAPS 4 to happen, they are going to have to adhere to the promises made or somehow spin their way out of it. They aren't very good at the first, while quite adept at the second. Larry, I hope there is a MAPS 4 and it passes with flying colors. Quit complaining and be happy that OKC is trying to improve life for it's residents and change it's image. Why would you want to complain about that? No conspiracy theory here! It's time that OKC grows up and becomes a better city!

Kerry & Larry complain all the time. The majority are happy with the maps programs otherwise they wouldn't keep passing them and there would be more on boards like this bitching and moaning.

I think most people are very happy with MAPS 1 and I think they're satisfied with the arena situation. Most voters have enough common sense to realize you don't get something for nothing, and that we got what we could afford. I sense a general satisfaction with what we've gotten for what we've spent, especially since it includes an NBA team. There are cities who've spent more than we did on an arena and have no team. Since we're far from finishing MAPS 3, let's see what we get for our money and put a hold on complaining until we're sure we didn't get what we paid for.
What Rover said. +1 Amen.

Was MAPS successful? No doubt. It generated far more in development than projected (even using the inaccurate lowest number). Yet even with that, the Chamber can't seem to stop with inflating the numbers. they included things that have absolutely no relation to MAPS as part of the impact (like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial). They had at least 3 sets of numbers, adding billions to the economic impact, even on the same web page. No one disputes that it was successful. If $1 billion sounds good, lets just say MAPS lead to $2 billion or even more. The implication is that if we go ahead with MAPS 3 and the 3/4 billion public "investment" we will see the same rate of return we saw with the original MAPS.


I understand concerns with the chamber's tally. But I'm also going to argue the impact truly is $2 billion or more. Let's strip out I-40, the MAPS projects themselves, and look at economic development in the urban core I will argue either wouldn't have happened at all (Devon has stated repeatedly they wouldn't have stuck around, SandRidge wouldn't have come downtown, St. Anthony would have split) or would have been greatly diminished (Oklahoma Health Center).
Here's the list kids. It's something I've been tracking from time to time but never really posted. It has some projects where I'm uncertain on the total, so it's under by several million or more (The Hill, Brownstones), and I've not been updating it of late so I'm sure there are several projects missing.
I'll let one of you guys total it out.

Devon Energy Center - $750 million
Renaissance Hotel — $38 million
Courtyard by Marriott and garage — $27 million
Sonic Corporation — $12 million
American Choral Directors Association — $2 million
Harkins Theatres — $14 million
Oklahoma Health Center — $270 million
Deep Deuce apartments — $15 million
Westin Hotel renovation — $11 million
5th Avenue Lofts — $1.5 million
501 Broadway Building — $3.1 million
Nonna’s Bricktown — $1.5 million
JDM Building — $5 million
Kingman Building — $6 million
Oklahoma Hardware Building — $4 million
Power Alley Parking Garage — $5.3 million
Coca-Cola Bricktown Events Center — $1.5 million
Miller-Jackson Building — $2 million
North Bricktown parking — $1 million
Hampton Inn - $25 million
Legacy at Arts Quarter - $33 million
Bass Pro Outdoor World — $19 million
Land Run Monument — $5 million
Lower Bricktown retail— $2 million
Residence Inn Lower Bricktown — $35 million
Skirvin Hotel — $54 million
St. Anthony Hospital — $200 million
The Montgomery — $5.5 million
Sieber Hotel apartments — $5 million
Chesapeake Energy Boathouse — $2 million
Devon Energy Boathouse - $5 million
Chesapeake Energy Finish-line Tower - $5 million
Block 42 – $11 million
The Hill – ??
The Brownstones at Maywood Park - ??
The Second Street Lofts - $14 million
Central Avenue Villas – $5 million
Level Urban Apartments – $24 million
Aloft Hotel – $18 million
SandRidge Commons - $100 million
Colcord Hotel
Steve Mason development - ??
Bob Howard/Mickey Clagg projects - ??
YMCA - ??
Banjo Museum - ??
Park Harvey Building - ??
Rick Dowell development - ??

Kerry & Larry complain all the time.

Example?

Steve: I fully appreciate what you are saying. I am not disputing that there has been more in private investment than was spent by the public portion either. Now how many of those items on that list would have happened anyway, MAPS or no MAPS? Not talking about DT specifically but would have been built somewhere else in the City? You even mentioned it in your recent story on SandRidge.

Just as there has been an increase in sales tax collections during each of the MAPS incarnations (the 6 month extension was supposed to bring in $30MM, or $60MM/yr) MAPS for Kids was higher than that, and MAPS 3 is supposed to bring in $100MM/yr avg. All well and good. But my question is how much of that is directly attributed to the various MAPS? In other words has the growth rate increased from what it was say in the 10 years prior to the first MAPS? Just for the sake of example, if the avg increase was say 10% and with MAPS it is 12%, that means only 2% net growth because of MAPS. Yet the spin-meisters will try to say that MAPS increased revenues by the full 12%. I am not complaining about growth, but they need to be honest with the growth.

progressiveboy: I have no problem with city leaders trying to improve things, but they need to do it honestly & legally. They need to stop the distortion and misleading info (spin), half-truths and in some cases out right lies just to get it passed. If I said it once, I have said it 100 times, I supported most if not all of the proposed MAPS 3 projects. I think they will be good for OKC but only if they are built: 1) as promised, 2) on time & 3) on budget. All something the City has a horrible track record with.

Some people just don't comprehend how these thing happen and why there can be legitimate differences between estimates pre-vote and actual project estimating and bidding for the actual projects. Never will understand and because of that will be suspicious of evil doings.

steve: I fully appreciate what you are saying. I am not disputing that there has been more in private investment than was spent by the public portion either. now how many of those items on that list would have happened anyway, maps or no maps? Not talking about dt specifically but would have been built somewhere else in the city? You even mentioned it in your recent story on sandridge.

just as there has been an increase in sales tax collections during each of the maps incarnations (the 6 month extension was supposed to bring in $30mm, or $60mm/yr) maps for kids was higher than that, and maps 3 is supposed to bring in $100mm/yr avg. All well and good. But my question is how much of that is directly attributed to the various maps? In other words has the growth rate increased from what it was say in the 10 years prior to the first maps? Just for the sake of example, if the avg increase was say 10% and with maps it is 12%, that means only 2% net growth because of maps. Yet the spin-meisters will try to say that maps increased revenues by the full 12%. I am not complaining about growth, but they need to be honest with the growth.

progressiveboy: I have no problem with city leaders trying to improve things, but they need to do it honestly & legally. They need to stop the distortion and misleading info (spin), half-truths and in some cases out right lies just to get it passed. If i said it once, i have said it 100 times, i supported most if not all of the proposed maps 3 projects. I think they will be good for okc but only if they are built: 1) as promised, 2) on time & 3) on budget. All something the city has a horrible track record with.

zero

Larry, If the city leaders did everything you want them to do, you would no longer have anything to post about. However, I want you to know I really do enjoy reading your posts and I have most of it memorized at present because you post the same thing over and over and over and over ...............

Popsy: That is because others keep posting the incorrect misinformation over and over...

Some people just don't comprehend how these thing happen and why there can be legitimate differences between estimates pre-vote and actual project estimating and bidding for the actual projects. Never will understand and because of that will be suspicious of evil doings.

I comprehend that. However, very few legitimate reasons have happened that they should have planned for and didn't. But what do you call it when NONE of the projects came in under budget? What do you call it when the budget doubles and you only get a portion of what was promised (the Canal is the posterchild)? What do you call it as with the original MAPS they didn't the cost of required include environmental studies, landscaping and the like? They didn't know about those things? please, while the method of funding was new (a sales tax instead of bond issue), this wasn't the City's first rodeo. What do you attribute it when the City admits that long term projects average 8% over? What do you call it when they fail to budget for at least that 8%? Why don't they do the due-diligence and get "real" costs before ever presenting it to the voters?

We know it can be done on the City side of things, as the NBA Practice Facility came in at about half of what they had earmarked for it. Why can't we get the equivalent of 8 Practice Facilities?

So far, the Trails are the MAPS 3 equivalent of the Canal. Someone at the City made a $40 million mistake and instead of completing the Trails Master Plan as the Parks Director stated would be done with the passage of MAPS 3 on the Mayor's Magazine program, instead there will be 60 miles still left unfunded (this came as a surprise to some of the Council members). Then we discover that due to oil/asphalt price increases, the 57 miles they mentioned repeatedly, won't be happening either. If prices stay with what they have budgeted currently, we are only getting 30 something miles. Is that legitimate? Perhaps, but then again when you have a volatile main component, you better budget to the extreme. the built in contingency is only going to get us the 30 something miles, and there wasn't enough in the other contingency fund either. Now maybe they will get lucky and the trails will be the only MAPS project that has this problem/ Oh that's right, there is the Convention Center that even betts worries is going to go way over budget and especially since they succeeded in getting it moved up in the time line, those projects that follow, like the completion of the Streetcars & Park are going to get shortchanged even if they stay within their announced budget.

Which brings us back to a basic budgeting issue. You estimate revenues low and costs high. Not the other way around. That way you can exceed expectations instead of always failing. Especially when they screwed it up before. Did they learn anything from that experience? Apparently not.

Larry, I can tell you that nothing would have happened south of Sheridan in Bricktown, at least not on the timetable it did, without the canal and ballpark. Devon would be gone. Kerr-McGee Tower would not have been snatched up by SandRidge. Deep Deuce, I believe, would not have been developed. Without MAPS, I truly believe downtown would have remained stuck as it was. The only items that would have happened, though I believe on a smaller scale, would be the OHC and some of the stuff on Broadway that was related to the bombing as much as it was to MAPS. Again, I'm not criticizing your concern about the chamber overplaying things - clearly, projects like the new I-40 would have happened with or without MAPS. I believe the list I've compiled, however, is largely spin-off related to MAPS that would not have happened without it.
This is not intended to be a "don't question how MAPS 3 is handled" list. MAPS was a success because it had people asking questions and challenging presumptions of elected leaders and city staff. And sometimes city staff was wrong.

It's not that the be vigilent and cost effective POV isn't important to hear and to consider, but daaaaaaaang, i'm almost missing some of the Not This MAPs rants. They were a tad shorter and easier to digest.

Agree with Steve. Downtown would still be a ghost town without MAPS 1. We'd have no NBA team, Deep Deuce would be a wasteland and the Devon tower would have been built in Houston. I'd be back in Denver, but perhaps my presence here is a negative to some. MAPS 1 was the single best thing to happen to Oklahoma City since.....whenever downtown was in its heydey. I didn't live here then, so don't have the dates.

Steve: I understand and we are good. Obviously certain projects would have only happened in DT and can be attributed to MAPS. Definitely have to take Devon at their word they are still here in the City because of it. Folks like SandRidge indicated that they would still be here but if not for the bargain price they got Kerr-McGee property, they would have built north of downtown. in other words, if the Kerr McGee tower hadbeen on Memorial or NW Expressway, they would have gone there instead.

Kevinpate: if it was directed at me, I do try to keep the posts short. LOL Seems when i go that way i get accused of making stuff up etc.

I'm also going to bet that Betts (excuse the pun) wouldn't have ended up choosing downtown as a residence either!

Steve or someone, I have always wondered, were there any publicly funded initiatives in OKC's history like in the 20's or 30's that were similar to today's OKC MAPS era, that help initiate revitalization of the downtown core, prior to the oil boom era?

Steve or someone, I have always wondered, were there any publicly funded initiatives in OKC's history like in the 20's or 30's that were similar to today's OKC MAPS era, that help initiate revitalization of the downtown core, prior to the oil boom era?

I'm not sure whether anything existed, but there likely was not a need to get people and businesses downtown prior to the proliferation of a car society and white flight to the suburbs. Downtown was the place to be because it didn't make sense to be spread out (and probably never has IMHO).

To some extent the original Civic Center was a precursor to MAPS...

To echo KilgoreTrout’s assessment, downtown didn't need revitalizing in that era because it never stopped growing until OKC annexed 500 sq miles and spread development all over the country side.

To echo KilgoreTrout’s assessment, downtown didn't need revitalizing in that era because it never stopped growing until OKC annexed 500 sq miles and spread development all over the country side.

The annexation of 500 sq. miles by OKC did not spread development all over the country side. Develpment spread because there was consumer demand for it. Do you really believe builders would keep building if there was no demand. You would have been better served if you had read an economics book that concentrated on supply and demand rather than the book on urbanism that you read half the book. Reading the urbanism book did allow you to fit in better with the most outspoken of the posters in this forum so perhaps you achieved what you wanted. It is up to you if you want to continue trying to distort just the facts.

The annexation of 500 sq. miles by OKC did not spread development all over the country side. Develpment spread because there was consumer demand for it. Do you really believe builders would keep building if there was no demand. You would have been better served if you had read an economics book that concentrated on supply and demand rather than the book on urbanism that you read half the book. Reading the urbanism book did allow you to fit in better with the most outspoken of the posters in this forum so perhaps you achieved what you wanted. It is up to you if you want to continue trying to distort just the facts.

Well, you're probably correct that the annexing of new land is not the reason for development, but you certainly could have posted that without assuming so much about a person and their motives from one sentence. Your post comes off as very condescending. Just state that demand caused sprawl and leave it at that.

Well, you're probably correct that the annexing of new land is not the reason for development, but you certainly could have posted that without assuming so much about a person and their motives from one sentence. Your post comes off as very condescending. Just state that demand caused sprawl and leave it at that.

It is my opinion that certain posters deserve a condescending response and I have no problem being condesdending if it serves a purpose. What I promise not to do is try to tell someone what and how they respond to another post. I trust your superiority complex has been satisfied by chastizing me for what I posted. Anything else I can do to make your day, let me know.

Good luck with that.

It is my opinion that certain posters deserve a condescending response and I have no problem being condesdending if it serves a purpose. What I promise not to do is try to tell someone what and how they respond to another post. I trust your superiority complex has been satisfied by chastizing me for what I posted. Anything else I can do to make your day, let me know.

Lol. Some people are just jerks. What can you do?

Couldn't think of anything to say, so you dropped down to name calling. Figures..

How do you respond to someone that justifies being condescending?

How do you respond to someone that justifies being condescending?

Put them on ignore.

Popsy - I am pretty well versed in economics. There is no supply and demand without a product. Economics is what led me to the new urbanism. Some found the new urbanism from an environmental origin, I got there from an economics origin.

Actually, supply fulfills demand. In a macro sense you can't keep supplying without demand. I hope this is the lesson that has been learned in this economy. When artificial demand is created, and supply fills that mirage, then it is unsustainable. OKC must fill demand generated in its economy. Overall, there can be pockets of anomalies, but in a total sense you cannot long term build more than we can consume. The more we build our economy and GROW our population, the more we can prosper. Investments that encourage that work. MAPs has done that very well to date. If we only supply what we currently consume and not invest in the future then we have failed.

Actually, supply fulfills demand. In a macro sense you can't keep supplying without demand. I hope this is the lesson that has been learned in this economy. When artificial demand is created, and supply fills that mirage, then it is unsustainable. OKC must fill demand generated in its economy. Overall, there can be pockets of anomalies, but in a total sense you cannot long term build more than we can consume. The more we build our economy and GROW our population, the more we can prosper. Investments that encourage that work. MAPs has done that very well to date. If we only supply what we currently consume and not invest in the future then we have failed.

...and I submit that a city built on sprawl is not sustainable and the people buying homes in suburbia were not (and are not) paying the true cost of their choice, hence bonds sold to pay for current needs backed by future taxes. How are future people supposed to meet their future needs if the future money has already been spent on past needs by people in the past?

OKC has a AAA GO bond rating and very low total indebtedness. As a comparison, Tulsa is AA. Considering the low cost of real estate and the low level of property taxes here, OKC has managed their finances well. OKC doesn't pay for Edmond or Midwest City, or Norman, or, or, or. While I believe it much healthier to have higher density, I don't believe it is as dramatic as you would like to have everyone believe. Who do you think isn't paying their way...specifically? Do you honestly believe downtown would have the same growth today without subsidies?

According to the City, sprawl now costs $18 million more to support than it brings in in taxes. I am not sure if the $45 million expansion of the Hefner water plant is factored into that. Nothing grows forever so if the economic model requires constant growth to work, it will eventually fail. Maybe MAPS IV should be the creation of two TIFF districts - the urban core and the non-core. All taxes collected in each district would have to be spent in the district. I wonder which would be better off after 10 years - the 50 sq mile urban core or the 550 sq mile suburban fringe. Too bad there is no way to find out.

Please give link to where the city accounting shows the cost of "sprawl" broken out. I agree sprawl is expensive, but I am curious what they consider boundaries and how they break out the accounting of it separately. I was unaware there was a separate accounting. Is sprawl 2 miles from dead center? 4 miles? 10 miles? Is it figured with concentric circles? Neighborhoods? How is it computed?

Please give link to where the city accounting shows the cost of "sprawl" broken out. I agree sprawl is expensive, but I am curious what they consider boundaries and how they break out the accounting of it separately. I was unaware there was a separate accounting. Is sprawl 2 miles from dead center? 4 miles? 10 miles? Is it figured with concentric circles? Neighborhoods? How is it computed?

I'll see if I can find the link to the news story again. I am not sure how the City calculated it, I just took their word for it. My guess is they looked at revenue vs expenses for areas annexed in the 1960's and discovered that the idea that the new areas would pay for themselves via growth didn't actually happen.

$136 Million in funds available as of October 31st, 2011. Which means now we are tipping in the $150 million range, good deal!

Source:OKC.GOV > City Council Agenda > MAPS3 Board Agenda 12/15/2011

$136 Million in funds available as of October 31st, 2011. Which means now we are tipping in the $150 million range, good deal!

Source:OKC.GOV > City Council Agenda > MAPS3 Board Agenda 12/15/2011

I've been keeping track of the revenue reports for a while now and it appears total revenue growth has fallen quite a bit--from approximately 10% per month at the beginning of the year to about 6.6% now. It's been a steady drop. 6.6% is still pretty good, I think. (Note, however, that October's revenue is well above the 2011 monthly average).

I wonder how much the NBA lockout affected the city. I'm willing to bet a substantial chunk of the drop-off is a result of the lockout. Hopefully, we'll see it rebound nicely starting this month.

I've been keeping track of the revenue reports for a while now and it appears total revenue growth has fallen quite a bit--from approximately 10% per month at the beginning of the year to about 6.6% now. It's been a steady drop. 6.6% is still pretty good, I think. (Note, however, that October's revenue is well above the 2011 monthly average).

I wonder how much the NBA lockout affected the city. I'm willing to bet a substantial chunk of the drop-off is a result of the lockout. Hopefully, we'll see it rebound nicely starting this month.

You would be wrong in that bet, while it will hurt some, it is nothing like 3.5% of all revenue. It goes against most known spending habits, people tend to spend their money on other things, so while some may go to surrounding communities at least percentage would have gone to the city anyway. Even with how expensive some tickets, concessions and nearby entertainment can be; the 20,000 people going to games and related entertainment on 40 to 56 nights are not out spending the normal spending of the half a million people going about normal life 365 days along with the several hundred thousand commuters and destination shoppers. Christmas shopping should have a much larger effect on city revenues through December anyway, though their will be some overlap with Thunder related gifts.

It would have hurt OKC's tax collections alot more if the entire NBA season was cancelled,but only 8 Home games and a couple of preseason games have been or are going to be lost.I think I read somewhere that well over $1million from each Thunder game could be lost!

You would be wrong in that bet, while it will hurt some, it is nothing like 3.5% of all revenue. It goes against most known spending habits, people tend to spend their money on other things, so while some may go to surrounding communities at least percentage would have gone to the city anyway. Even with how expensive some tickets, concessions and nearby entertainment can be; the 20,000 people going to games and related entertainment on 40 to 56 nights are not out spending the normal spending of the half a million people going about normal life 365 days along with the several hundred thousand commuters and destination shoppers. Christmas shopping should have a much larger effect on city revenues through December anyway, though their will be some overlap with Thunder related gifts.


Those 3.5 percentage points represent several hundred thousand dollars in revenue, so I'm still willing to bet a significant portion can be accounted for in the lockout. To me, at least, even .5 percentage points of that is signficant. So maybe it's just a different conception of what "substantial" is.

I'm also sure that those 20,000 people who attend Thunder games plus related events in downtown spend multiples of what they would if they weren't attending a game or related event. The average attendee, hypothetically, may spend well over $100 during the course of the night, whereas if they were simply doing a daily routine, they'd spend $20.

Also you need to take into account, all of the people who work for the NBA, media, teams, etc. that travel to the games. They have cab fares, rental cars, hotel rooms, food expenses, etc. and typically spend more than a leisure traveler since they might be on a per diem rate and are spending their bosses money. That money is not being spent right now.

I wonder dow much of these maps 3 projects will actually get done.

I wonder dow much of these maps 3 projects will actually get done.

That's an easy one, all of them.

I wonder dow much of these maps 3 projects will actually get done.

Just by going on track record of all the other MAPS votes/projects,all of these projects will be completed!

That one thing I can say about the MAPS PROJECTS (MAPS I, MAPS II for KIDS, MAPS for HOOPS) the city has maintained a track record for delivery. MAPS III shouldn't be any different. MAPS for HOOPS has improved the Chesapeake Energy Arena which is used for many events as well as the NBA Thunder being its anchor tenant. The Thunder's new practice facility which many people questioned, does provide for the team and it is City-owned. The amount of support the players and the Thunder personnel give back to this community is immeasureable.

Today's maps3 board meeting video seems to only cover like items 1 & 2 before cutting out abruptly, did anything interesting happen in discussion of the like 12 agenda items that got cut out?

Just by going on track record of all the other MAPS votes/projects,all of these projects will be completed!

Yes indeed. And by that same track record, we can expect that they will NOT be built:

1) On time
2) On budget
3) As promised

Currently there are several MAPS 3 projects that have already followed the pattern.

Yes indeed. And by that same track record, we can expect that they will NOT be built:

1) On time
2) On budget
3) As promised

Currently there are several MAPS 3 projects that have already followed the pattern.

Glad you didn't disappoint us. try to have a Good Day Mr. OKC Negative.

Yes indeed. And by that same track record, we can expect that they will NOT be built:

1) On time
2) On budget
3) As promised

Currently there are several MAPS 3 projects that have already followed the pattern.

I'm gonna guess you voted NO to all the MAPS votes?Other than my quick comment,you are %100 correct but what would OKC be w/o the MAPS taxes?My guess is that we would have NO NBA,NO improved or rebuilt schools,NO Boathouse row and just maybe no Devon tower and the P180 that goes with it,I'm just guessing!

I'm gonna guess you voted NO to all the MAPS votes?Other than my quick comment,you are %100 correct but what would OKC be w/o the MAPS taxes?My guess is that we would have NO NBA,NO improved or rebuilt schools,NO Boathouse row and just maybe no Devon tower and the P180 that goes with it,I'm just guessing!

dmoor82 - you're spot on........................about OKC without MAPS

I remember back in 1993 when the first MAPS had passed and thinking WOW,a 20,000 seat arena and a canal!I think it is very safe to say that all installments of the MAPS projects have been extremely successful and each have had some sort of spin off or spurred development from each of the projects.IF the first vote had not passed back in 93',Bricktown might very well still be dead and our idea of a good night would only consist of dinner at Spaghetti Warehouse.Each action in life has either a positive or negative reaction,and I think with each MAPS project built creates civic pride within the community,because we know that our city is thriving BECAUSE of us!