I'm actually optimistic about the next MAPS. There is very little left IMHO that the city fathers could ask for. I think the next one is all about sidewalks, transit, more trails, and western river improvements. I don't see it stopping as projects start to come online with grandeur generating excitement for people.

That doesn't mean that I think these concerns are overrated, but we're getting very close to focussing our energy/money on what the majority of people want.

It could spiral out of control if they don't watch it though. I mean politically. The sidewalk issue should be resolved in a way that is politically salient as soon as possible. The same for transit should the budget be short.

Are you sure it's really the majority? There are some part of the public who do understand the benefits more convention space can provide. Either way, when I first moved here 4 years ago, the first thing I noticed was OKC was a place where it seemed most of the city was on the same page, and people worked together to bring stuff here (like the NBA) because they realized OKC was not NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc...cities that could just snap their fingers and get what they wanted.

I want it all. The transit, the trails, the river development, the convention space. Why can't we have it all if we keep supporting the way we've been doing it. We don't want to end up like Wichita, who has no real direction and keeps losing jobs left and right to places like OKC.

I'm with you on that... If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent. It's not like it was a large margin of victory. I'll be going to the no side next time...



54-46 I believe.

With Project 180 being half done, the MAPS3 Sidewalks/Trails coming in over budget, and the debacle with the new CC, I have a feeling this will be the last MAPS package that the city will be able to pass. The way MAPS3 is currently being managed will deter OKC citizens to support future MAPS programs.


I'm with you on that... If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent. It's not like it was a large margin of victory. I'll be going to the no side next time...

Wow, so we are only into year 3 of an eight-year tax and 12 year plan and no ground has been broken on any project and we are already going to declare it a failure? A bit weak if you ask me.

How MAPS3 doing in terms of projected revenues? Is it coming in substantially under, under, even, over, or substantially over?

Are you sure it's really the majority? There are some part of the public who do understand the benefits more convention space can provide. Either way, when I first moved here 4 years ago, the first thing I noticed was OKC was a place where it seemed most of the city was on the same page, and people worked together to bring stuff here (like the NBA) because they realized OKC was not NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc...cities that could just snap their fingers and get what they wanted.

I want it all. The transit, the trails, the river development, the convention space. Why can't we have it all if we keep supporting the way we've been doing it. We don't want to end up like Wichita, who has no real direction and keeps losing jobs left and right to places like OKC.

Well let me put it this way, it was the majority when I was working on the campaign. Sidewalks, trails, streetcar, and river improvements towed the vote. This was scientifically assessed. Now certainly, that may have changed slightly, but I doubt that it has changed that much. There was also a public poll done by the Gazette as well that is often quoted and probably buried in this thread.

But let me extrapolate further, the people who are gaining influence and the ability to broadly persuade the public want essentially "MAPS for Neighborhoods". With the streetcar specifically, we will in theory be reaching out of downtown in a second phase. So that project meshes well with where this broader influence is going.

A great many people do not realize it, but the next GO bond election will either be very close, if not on the same day as MAPS in theory. That is obviously affected by the speed at which bonds are capable of being sold. But with the economy steady and sales stabilized, the timing right now almost assures close proximity to voting on both. So that the next election/elections in theory is for over $1.6 billion in public improvements.

So GO bond resolves core desired elements such as sidewalks, streets, neighborhood parks, and such while a MAPS type element can be geared to continued visionary elements or additional substantial neighborhood elements.

There are potential major competing elements that still have not been resolved such as a Regional Transit Authority, County Jail, water distribution improvements among others. One or several of these major issues may end up being a big piece of the pie as well depending on where the politics goes and who is involved in influencing the docket.

But another major note about the diversion from tradittional, top down, heavy-handed docket making to this broader context of influence that is being redistributed in this city-

The Friends for a Better Boulevard Campaign may have appeared on the surface to have been some random Facebook Group which grew legs. I can assure you that it wasn't and that now well oiled, tested machine is very much idling for the next big thing.

I'd disagree that GO Bond resolves core desired issues on one level. I believe Pat Ryan mentioned that he thinks sidewalks should be a specific item in the next GO Bond election. However, bonds for sidewalks are not considered necessary public infrastructure by current state law, so the vote requires a higher approval percentage to pass (above 60% I believe). Therefore, the City had previously decided to NOT allow it as a separate item and rolled it into streets. State law needs to be changed to require a simple majority and then it could be a separate Bond item.

I suspect many of the people involved in this new wave of influence would agree with you and would want more sidewalks in MAPS irregardless of the size/scope of the GO Bond. The technicality regarding the state language is interesting and explains a great deal about the 2007 docket.

I'd disagree that GO Bond resolves core desired issues on one level. I believe Pat Ryan mentioned that he thinks sidewalks should be a specific item in the next GO Bond election. However, bonds for sidewalks are not considered necessary public infrastructure by current state law, so the vote requires a higher approval percentage to pass (above 60% I believe). Therefore, the City had previously decided to NOT allow it as a separate item and rolled it into streets. State law needs to be changed to require a simple majority and then it could be a separate Bond item.
If not mistaken, General Obligation bond issue propositions only require voter approval of 50% plus 1. The super majority of 60% is on school bond issues.

I'm with you on that... If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent. It's not like it was a large margin of victory. I'll be going to the no side next time...

What? Why?

I'm with you on that... If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent. It's not like it was a large margin of victory. I'll be going to the no side next time...


Shouldn't you be objective enough and see how it all plays out instead of making rash decisions early in the game ?

Decipher my posts however you may. All Im saying is they changed the order of projects around compared to what the project order is that citizens were concerned with the most.

I know that collections are up 9% from this time last year and my concern with voting a possible no is not because Im disappointed with how little has been done since the inception of MAPS3 but more with the fact that at some point, all this public tax should lead to some private development. Something that doesn't have to be paid for and scrutinized by the city--which is on a pretty good track with that right now concerning other projects!

And you're thinking all of the private development would occur before any of the MAPS3 projects have even commenced? I think there is substantial evidence that private development on a large scale has occured as a result of previous MAPS projects, but not in advance of the projects themselves.

ljbab728: Certainly not until the placement of the projects has been determined/property purchased/dirt moved on the site. Don't want to start your project based on where they said they were going to put it and then change it on ya.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before. With the state fair just around the corner, I found this video of the improvements to be made in Maps 3.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before. With the state fair just around the corner, I found this video of the improvements to be made in Maps 3.

I don't see any link.

Read more: http://newsok.com/tulsa-council-seeks-initiative-advice-from-oklahoma-city-counterparts/article/3707582#ixzz25qOim4KR

Projects included in a package have to be a mix of what businesses are looking for, what the council is looking for and what will help get it to 50 percent on election day, Cornett said.
“We all have our pet projects we’d like to see funded, but if it’s polling at 28 percent, it’s not a good idea,” he said. “It might bring down everything. Your entire package is only as strong as its weakest link.”
Described the MAPS 3 Convention Center pretty well.


Oklahoma City elected officials certainly debated and argued among themselves, Cornett said. “But once we called the election, we were on board, and not a single one of us spoke negatively about the (MAPS 3) initiative going forward,” he said.
Not a single one? Revisionist history again? It was not unanimous. No matter what you might think of Ward 5 Councilman Brian Walters, he voted against MAPS 3 going to a vote (required by state law if they are going to impose a new tax/tax increase to fund it) because he thought it was the wrong idea at the wrong time among other things. He was an outspoken opponent during the campaign...

Other council people put the best spin on it that they could...saying things like (not a direct quote), I don't like everything that is in it but I am going to let the people decide (again, required by state law if they want to fund it that way).

I guess that would help. http://okstatefair.com/state-fair-park/maps-3-project

I guess that would help. http://okstatefair.com/state-fair-park/maps-3-project

Maybe I am not thinking straight, but that Oklahoma Events Center in the Fairgrounds animation looks a lot like a reasonable expectation for the convention center at the South C2S location. I bet it would come in relatively close to the budget allocated to the MAP CC. Am I way off base?

I still prefer the CC concept in BG918's drawings better than anything I have seen to date.

I guess that would help. MAPS 3 Updates | Oklahoma State Fair (http://okstatefair.com/state-fair-park/maps-3-project)

Will the State Fair clean up that ghastly mess of dirt piles and strange aluminum-sided buildings on the southwest corner? It is a supreme eyesore. God awful. It makes the entire fairgrounds look like a dump when viewed from I-44.

How is that a spin? ...
Spin may not be the right word...there were a couple of Council folks that reluctantly voted for it...they gave themselves cover if their constituents voted against it (see I was with you, I didn't like it either) or if their voters voted for it (yep, I like a lot of it too) by not fully endorsing it, but letting the voters decide the issue (which they are required by law to do if they want to pay for any project by using a new tax/tax increase. The Mayor even said recently leading up to his remarks at the GOP convention, that they "allowed" us to vote on it. Allowed? Again, they are required by law to do so. If the COuncil had voted against it going to the voters, they would have had to have found another revenue source or abandon the projects completely.

Brian Walters was the most vocal in his opposition. Before and during the campaign. Some were behind it 100% and spoke at MAPS information meetings in their official capacity (which from what I understand, it is against state law for any elected official to campaign/advocate during the campaign on these types of things. That is why the Chamber runs the campaign to get it passed. Some voted for it to go to the people and kept a low profile.

Wide spread support is not indicated by the passing percentage. This MAPS passed by a nearly identical percentage as the original where it was described at the time as "barely passing" (unlike the MAPS 6 month "extension", MAPS 4 Kids and the Ford/NBA MAPS related tax, which all passed by healthy margins). IIRC, some wards it failed, some were very close and some passed easily...also think the ward split was very similar to the original MAPS whee it generally failed on Southside but passed on Northside by just enough.

Spin may not be the right word...there were a couple of Council folks that reluctantly voted for it...they gave themselves cover if their constituents voted against it (see I was with you, I didn't like it either) or if their voters voted for it (yep, I like a lot of it too) by not fully endorsing it, but letting the voters decide the issue (which they are required by law to do if they want to pay for any project by using a new tax/tax increase. The Mayor even said recently leading up to his remarks at the GOP convention, that they "allowed" us to vote on it. Allowed? Again, they are required by law to do so. If the COuncil had voted against it going to the voters, they would have had to have found another revenue source or abandon the projects completely.

Brian Walters was the most vocal in his opposition. Before and during the campaign. Some were behind it 100% and spoke at MAPS information meetings in their official capacity (which from what I understand, it is against state law for any elected official to campaign/advocate during the campaign on these types of things. That is why the Chamber runs the campaign to get it passed. Some voted for it to go to the people and kept a low profile.

Wide spread support is not indicated by the passing percentage. This MAPS passed by a nearly identical percentage as the original where it was described at the time as "barely passing" (unlike the MAPS 6 month "extension", MAPS 4 Kids and the Ford/NBA MAPS related tax, which all passed by healthy margins). IIRC, some wards it failed, some were very close and some passed easily...also think the ward split was very similar to the original MAPS whee it generally failed on Southside but passed on Northside by just enough.


if it was not for the very ill conceived police fire anti maps campaign .. it would have passed by a bigger margin

This MAPS passed by a nearly identical percentage as the original where it was described at the time as "barely passing" (unlike the MAPS 6 month "extension", MAPS 4 Kids and the Ford/NBA MAPS related tax, which all passed by healthy margins). IIRC, some wards it failed, some were very close and some passed easily...also think the ward split was very similar to the original MAPS whee it generally failed on Southside but passed on Northside by just enough.

FALSE. MAPS III passed by a similar, but larger margin than MAPS I, despite much higher voter participation and a well-funded, high-profile campaign against it. "NOT THIS MAPS" got whipped good. Fail.

soonerguru: Sorry but it is TRUE. Same percentages. Maybe MAPS was rounded up and MAPS 3 was rounded down, but even if that was the case it would be a maximum spread of 1% or less. Thus the same 54% for both.

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 Initiatives - Brief History of MAPS, FAQs, Status and List of MAPS 3 Initiatives (http://okc.about.com/od/citygovernment/a/okcmaps3.htm)

It's hard to believe now as we look back that the original MAPS initiatives nearly didn't pass a vote of the people. Early polls showed less than fantastic support for the Metropolitan Area Projects, a bundle of 9 major Oklahoma City projects to be funded by a 5 year, 1 cent sales tax increase. But in December of 1993, MAPS squeaked by voters at 54%.
…
On December 8, 2009, MAPS 3 passed by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent. Election board officials estimated a total voter turnout of 31 percent, significantly higher than most local elections. Final vote numbers were 40,956 yes and 34,465 no.



History of the MAPS projects TIMELINE timeline | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/history-of-the-maps-projects-timeline-timeline/article/3454837#ixzz26BH5Tw5G)

December 1993 Voters pass MAPS
Voter turnout was strong. The MAPS sales tax passed with 54 percent of the vote.

Read more: MAPS 3 passes with 54.3% of vote | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/maps-3-passes-with-54.3-of-vote/article/3423551#ixzz26BTSWOzR)

...with about 54 percent of the vote with all precincts reporting. Oklahoma County Election Board officials were anticipating voter turnout of about 25 to 30 percent, about twice as high as most city elections.


I didn't find an exact number on voter participation for the original MAPS (just "strong"). Lack of evidence to the contrary I will concede for now that voter turnout was higher, but the end results were the same. While number of voters may have been higher, the percentages of passing and how the vote broke down demonstrated striking similarities. Doug's blog (Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS 3 — Unofficial Vote Totals (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/12/maps-3-unofficial-vote-totals.html)) shows that Wards 3, 4 & 5 voted No, with Ward 6 passing by 57 votes, and Ward 7 passing by 474 votes. The other Wards passed by healthier margins.

For sure, there were differing reasons as to the barely passing percentages, be it North/South side; union opposition; the unconstitutionally questionable logrolling all-or-nothing ballot format; including a very unpopular item (the Convention Center), that arguably came close to sinking the entire thing. etc etc etc

... a well-funded, high-profile campaign against it. "NOT THIS MAPS" got whipped good. Fail.

I strongly disliked the anti-MAPS campaign. It was a lot like the Aesops fable about the dog who lost his food to the river as he wanted both bones (his and his reflection's). I understand that there is only so much taxation you can spread around, but the opposition to continuing a well-documented success seemed a lot like bellyaching pigs wanting a better place at the feed trough.

I sympathized with the police and fire departments' issues over their decreased funding, but I thought it was a huge mistake to try and hold the MAP's 3 vote hostage.

The vote was also held in late 2009, when anti-tax tea party rhetoric and anxiety over local, state, and national budgets were hitting their zenith. And yet somehow the vote didn't do any worse than the original MAPs vote. I think that's pretty remarkable.

soonerguru: Sorry but it is TRUE. Same percentages. Maybe MAPS was rounded up and MAPS 3 was rounded down, but even if that was the case it would be a maximum spread of 1% or less. Thus the same 54% for both.

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 Initiatives - Brief History of MAPS, FAQs, Status and List of MAPS 3 Initiatives (http://okc.about.com/od/citygovernment/a/okcmaps3.htm)



History of the MAPS projects TIMELINE timeline | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/history-of-the-maps-projects-timeline-timeline/article/3454837#ixzz26BH5Tw5G)

Read more: MAPS 3 passes with 54.3% of vote | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/maps-3-passes-with-54.3-of-vote/article/3423551#ixzz26BTSWOzR)


I didn't find an exact number on voter participation for the original MAPS (just "strong"). Lack of evidence to the contrary I will concede for now that voter turnout was higher, but the end results were the same. While number of voters may have been higher, the percentages of passing and how the vote broke down demonstrated striking similarities. Doug's blog (Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS 3 — Unofficial Vote Totals (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/12/maps-3-unofficial-vote-totals.html)) shows that Wards 3, 4 & 5 voted No, with Ward 6 passing by 57 votes, and Ward 7 passing by 474 votes. The other Wards passed by healthier margins.

For sure, there were differing reasons as to the barely passing percentages, be it North/South side; union opposition; the unconstitutionally questionable logrolling all-or-nothing ballot format; including a very unpopular item (the Convention Center), that arguably came close to sinking the entire thing. etc etc etc

Fair enough, but a 54-46 margin is not a squeaker by any definition. That is a decisive victory, particularly considering its organized opposition. If Obama wins by eight against Mitt that will be considered a blowout.

As in football, regardless of the score, it's a "W". Whether we get another "W" in the future depends on public sentiment regarding MAPS 3 projects. Way too early to tell

Fair enough, but a 54-46 margin is not a squeaker by any definition. That is a decisive victory, particularly considering its organized opposition. If Obama wins by eight against Mitt that will be considered a blowout.
If you think it is just semantics, go ahead. That's the kind of description by the media at the time...by those that supported its passage. If you have a problem with it, talk to them. Tax increase votes had repeatedly failed prior to MAPS (check out Doug's blog for a rather detailed coverage of the issue). A "decisive victory" might be the MAPS 6-month "extension" (68%), MAPS 4 Kids (61%), the Ford/NBA tax (62%), the 2007 General Obligation Bond issues (where each passed by at least 80% according to the Mayor), Cornett's 88% re-election (the largest in OKC history) etc. Even the Mayor toned down his "mandate" rhetoric after it barely passed and switched to the word "assignment".

Betts: yes it could end up with all of the projects being built on time, on budget and as promised. But how likely is that going to be with what has transpired so far with the missed cost projections which are going to cost multi-millions to deliver as promised or severely cut back (Trails, Sidewalks etc). These are the relatively minor projects. Does anyone doubt that the Convention Center is going to be several multi-millions over budget when it is all said and done? It is the most expensive MAPS 3 project and it's $250 to $280 million budget was more than all what voters were told the original MAPS projects combined were going to cost ($237.6 million). MAPS 3 is Déjà vu all over again.

I do agree that it depends on public sentiment and if City/Chamber leadership is as skilled as the recent ones in spinning, using half-truths and in some cases out-right lies to get any future MAPS passed.

If you think it is just semantics, go ahead. That's the kind of description by the media at the time...by those that supported its passage. If you have a problem with it, talk to them. Tax increase votes had repeatedly failed prior to MAPS (check out Doug's blog for a rather detailed coverage of the issue). A "decisive victory" might be the MAPS 6-month "extension" (68%), MAPS 4 Kids (61%), the Ford/NBA tax (62%), the 2007 General Obligation Bond issues (where each passed by at least 80% according to the Mayor), Cornett's 88% re-election (the largest in OKC history) etc. Even the Mayor toned down his "mandate" rhetoric after it barely passed and switched to the word "assignment".

Betts: yes it could end up with all of the projects being built on time, on budget and as promised. But how likely is that going to be with what has transpired so far with the missed cost projections which are going to cost multi-millions to deliver as promised or severely cut back (Trails, Sidewalks etc). These are the relatively minor projects. Does anyone doubt that the Convention Center is going to be several multi-millions over budget when it is all said and done? It is the most expensive MAPS 3 project and it's $250 to $280 million budget was more than all what voters were told the original MAPS projects combined were going to cost ($237.6 million). MAPS 3 is Déjà vu all over again.

I do agree that it depends on public sentiment and if City/Chamber leadership is as skilled as the recent ones in spinning, using half-truths and in some cases out-right lies to get any future MAPS passed.

WTF? Semantics? I couldn't give a crap what some local writer said. An 8 point margin in a fiercely contested political battle is a decisive win. I don't look to the Oklahoman or Gazette for intelligent or enlightening political analysis.

Whatever. You have the facts/stats. Call it/believe whatever you want.

MAPS 3 Update at City Council 9-25-2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SfcrfTET0O0)

Oklahoma City Council discusses MAPS 3 issues, police positions, capital improvements during Tuesday's meeting | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-discusses-maps-3-issues-police-positions-capital-improvements-during-tuesdays-meeting/article/3715123)

Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/19906622/architects-reveal-newest-plan-for-downtown-okc-park)

Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/19906622/architects-reveal-newest-plan-for-downtown-okc-park)

"One design has a large lake for paddle boats, another design has two smaller lakes and a third option has no lake at all."

I'm gonna have to go with the large lake option. Having all the athletic items on the south end of the park is a good idea. Puts that option closer to the neighborhoods south of the river and allows for easy access to/from the river trails. Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote cause they always have these things when I'm working! Edit: I actually get off at 6pm tomorrow! YAY!!

"One design has a large lake for paddle boats, another design has two smaller lakes and a third option has no lake at all."

I'm gonna have to go with the large lake option. Having all the athletic items on the south end of the park is a good idea. Puts that option closer to the neighborhoods south of the river and allows for easy access to/from the river trails. Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote cause they always have these things when I'm working! Edit: I actually get off at 6pm tomorrow! YAY!!

I don't like how the large lake is to cut off so much of the west side of the park from everything, the island in it seems like it could be a maintenance issue as well.

Just cause there's a representational island in the lake or the lake is shaped that way in the model doesn't mean it's going to be the final product.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote cause they always have these things when I'm working! Edit: I actually get off at 6pm tomorrow! YAY!!

I feel your pain on that! But I'm glad that you will be getting of at 6... can't wait until I start my new job and am able to go to things like this!

http://newsok.com/celebrations-planned-in-2013-for-20th-anniversary-of-oklahoma-citys-maps-vote/article/3737678

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I'd rather get some of the current stuff in the current vote built first. Perhaps the streetcar "groundbreaking" will coincide with it. Or a bunch of "groundbreakings" for that matter.

So it could complimentary to what is actually going on in year 2013.

Nope. We can't. At least until procurement is done and we select a specific company that is.

Nope. We can't. At least until procurement is done and we select a specific company that is.

I breezed an article in this month's issue of Trains Magazine that said this years attendance for streetcar cab show (whatever it is) was the largest in its history. Did you guys go to this show or will you be looking to attend it next year? The article showed no mention of OKC in any kind of planning phase at all so I hope we're on that list next year.

I was interviewed by an independent writer for Trains Mag I think... Or it might have been Progressive Railroading. I can't remember.

I'm not sure about the "streetcar cab show" but usually one of us goes to Railvolution and APTA every year. This city has also joined the Streetcar Coalition at the Subcommittee and Ed Shadid's behest to gain broader exposure for our program.

This coming Wed meeting will be an important one.

APTA sounds familiar so that was probably it. They had 4 or 5 different cabs manufactured by various companies on display at this show in the pic that was featured as a news item in this month's issue of Trains. I didn't see any mention of OKC so it was probably Progressive Railroading.

An update on the Senior Citizens Centers:

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 board adopts revised outline for senior centers | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-3-board-adopts-revised-outline-for-senior-centers/article/3739384)

An update on the Senior Citizens Centers:

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 board adopts revised outline for senior centers | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-3-board-adopts-revised-outline-for-senior-centers/article/3739384)

If I read this correctly, it sounds like having only two centers would now be considered an acceptable outcome. Makes one wonder if anything in M3 will even come close to the hype used to get folks to vote for the new c center.

If I read this correctly, it sounds like having only two centers would now be considered an acceptable outcome. Makes one wonder if anything in M3 will even come close to the hype used to get folks to vote for the new c center.

I wouldn't bet on anything getting done outside the CC. Not saying specifically anything won't get done, but the only reason we had an M3 was for a CC. Anything else that emerges is gravy, unfortunately, which is precisely why I opposed M3 - not because we didn't need a convention center, but because the whole process was so fundamentally dishonest.

Strange thing is pre-vote, the Mayor indicated that they had multiple partners already lined up, ready to take over operations of the Senior Aquatic Centers...they just needed the City to build them? Oh well, Guess not.

Strange thing is pre-vote, the Mayor indicated that they had multiple partners already lined up, ready to take over operations of the Senior Aquatic Centers...they just needed the City to build them? Oh well, Guess not.

link??

BoulderSooner: I can't find a print document for verification, so I must have seen it mentioned in a Council meeting or on the Mayor's Magazine program on Cox

Sid, you are correct, I didn't mean "lined up" as in contract signed etc...but if you have "several potential partners" that would mean a line was forming or in other words, "lined up":cool:

Then after it passes and some details are known nearly everyone gets out of line???

ON EDIT: I did find a Gazette article that mentioned partnering with the Y or universities...

Sid, you are correct, I didn't mean "lined up" as in contract signed etc...but if you have "several potential partners" that would mean a line was forming or in other words, "lined up":cool:

Then after it passes and some details are known nearly everyone gets out of line???

ON EDIT: I did find a Gazette article that mentioned partnering with the Y or universities...

If I recall correctly, some people did submit, but didn't match what the City asked for. Others wanted to submit but didn't like the terms/couldn't perform as asked. Maybe they should have been consulted some how during the creation process?

cafeboeuf: you are correct. But that seems to be the way the City does most MAPS style projects. They come up with these grand ideas and don't worry about the details until much later. We have seen the same process with Project 180 etc. Then when reality hits the fan they have problems reconciling what voters were told to secure their vote.

If I recall correctly, some people did submit, but didn't match what the City asked for. Others wanted to submit but didn't like the terms/couldn't perform as asked. Maybe they should have been consulted some how during the creation process?

I think they did very much work with the partners before the resubmitted the RFP

http://vimeo.com/62615686

2013 Joseph P. Riley Award winner Mayor Mick Cornett of Oklahoma City on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/62615686)

LOL. Nearly all of the historic photo slides are mirror images of reality.

LOL. Nearly all of the historic photo slides are mirror images of reality.

Yes, I just watched the video and that was the first thing I noticed!

cafeboeuf: you are correct. But that seems to be the way the City does most MAPS style projects. They come up with these grand ideas and don't worry about the details until much later. We have seen the same process with Project 180 etc. Then when reality hits the fan they have problems reconciling what voters were told to secure their vote.

Which is precisely why MAPS4 should be voted down.

Which is precisely why MAPS4 should be voted down.

So I take it you'd like to go back to 1993 and keep everything the way it was then, oh, Devon would have left sometime after that so throw them in there as being gone ???

Which is precisely why MAPS4 should be voted down.

I don't think so. MAPS has done so much for OKC that it'd be hard to see any reason for it to discontinue. Maybe that is precisely why MAPS4 should be presented more specifically, or even in separate, smaller projects. Sort of MAPS 4.1, MAPS 4.2, etc. I even think there should be a small gap between MAPS3 taxation and the MAPS4 proposition, letting the public see or feel the idea that THEY are investing in OKC and they should take ownership of it.

I am not saying that MAPS hasn't been good for the City. The problem is when they over promise and under deliver, engage in illegal ballots etc. Unless the voters hold them accountable, they won't change the way they do things. Get a No vote and if the projects are really that important, they will figure out what went wrong, repackage it (hopefully the legal way) and try again.