If you've seen knives on this thread I would call them butter knives. Either that or this forum is more thin-skinned than most I've participated in. And the "sharpest" comments are from people who aren't part of the subcommittee. I consider that an indication that there are people who thought they were voting for a streetcar when they went to the polls for MAPS 3. The answer to O&M questions is that city staff says we have the money to run the streetcar. That doesn't even take into account the significant potential for advertising revenue on the trains, at the stops, nor does it consider potential revenue from commercial operations such as retail and parking that might arise from a maintenance facility. Heck, we might even sell naming rights;).

Has anyone figured out whether the general fund can support that much additional expenditure?

the city manager says that it can

so disingenuous and void of any context

Not at all disingneuous nor void of context. Steve is absolutely correct in his statement that voters voted for effectively a blank check.

Plenty of people here were vilified for pointing out precisely this problem with MAPS3, that it was only a resolution of intent with absolutely zero promises attached, and here we are, yet again, with many people acting with varying degrees of shock and surprise that "Thing We Were Promised X Isn't Happening," when, in reality, that "thing" was never promised. We were given a resolution of intent. And there is zero doubt in my mind that the only underlying intent among the core power structure in OKC was for a new convention center, which was known to be an unsellable proposition on its own as an independent MAPS3 project.

That Steve is being vilified for pointing out the plain language of the resolution is astonishing, as is the failure to understand that a "Resolution of Intent" isn't worth the paper its written on in terms of a "promise" of anything. I believe there is and was a way to bind the city to its intent and abide the state constitutional rules regarding the encumbrance of city funds, and wrote that notion to the city manager (in considerable detail, at least for a layman), but was given a very generic response that it wouldn't work.

The point here is that to criticize someone for pointing out what MAPS3 really is represents the archetype of shooting the messenger.

the city manager says that it can

Think about this in light of past debates, discussions over Project 180 implementation, the boulevard, etc. One final comment from me and I'm moving on - there's a lot of confusion in the whole source of this debate. Someone asked about Shadid and the comments over at OKC Talk. I mentioned that folks in the transit thread didn't like being questioned or challenged - which Shadid was doing. Make note: I didn't say Shadid was right in his questions or challenges. But sure enough, folks in the thread did not being questioned or challenged in all this. I DID NOT make any reference to the MAPS 3 transit committee.

Not at all disingneuous nor void of context. Steve is absolutely correct in his statement that voters voted for effectively a blank check.

Plenty of people here were vilified for pointing out precisely this problem with MAPS3, that it was only a resolution of intent with absolutely zero promises attached, and here we are, yet again, with many people acting with varying degrees of shock and surprise that "Thing We Were Promised X Isn't Happening," when, in reality, that "thing" was never promised. We were given a resolution of intent. And there is zero doubt in my mind that the only underlying intent among the core power structure in OKC was for a new convention center, which was known to be an unsellable proposition on its own as an independent MAPS3 project.

That Steve is being vilified for pointing out the plain language of the resolution is astonishing, as is the failure to understand that a "Resolution of Intent" isn't worth the paper its written on in terms of a "promise" of anything. I believe there is and was a way to bind the city to its intent and abide the state constitutional rules regarding the encumbrance of city funds, and wrote that notion to the city manager (in considerable detail, at least for a layman), but was given a very generic response that it wouldn't work.

The point here is that to criticize someone for pointing out what MAPS3 really is represents the archetype of shooting the messenger.

we voted for maps 3 with trust in the maps brand and in the city council .... and that trust continues to be upheld .... we have a councilmen that clearly doesn't care about the maps brand nor the resolution of projects

fortunately the majority of the council does and that resolution does count for a lot .. it counts for the future of the MAPS brand

the city manager says that it can

Think about this in light of past debates, discussions over Project 180 implementation, the boulevard, etc. One final comment from me and I'm moving on - there's a lot of confusion in the whole source of this debate. Someone asked about Shadid and the comments over at OKC Talk. I mentioned that folks in the transit thread didn't like being questioned or challenged - which Shadid was doing. Make note: I didn't say Shadid was right in his questions or challenges. But sure enough, folks in the thread did not being questioned or challenged in all this. I DID NOT make any reference to the MAPS 3 transit committee.

What started this whole fuss was this answer I gave in the OKC Central chat:
It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.
Shadid is being seen as challenging or questioning whether the streetcar should be implemented as desired by folks in the transit thread at OKC Talk. And you guys don't like that. At no point in this conversation have I said the streetcar advocates have made bad conclusions. At no point have I indicated it's a bad project. I do question whether planning for operation and maintenance was thought out for MAPS 3 as well as it was for the original MAPS. And I do question how firmly this project is locked in considering the great amount of discretion given the city council by voters (wittingly or not).

Well the irony in that statement is that this debate is about Shadid "keeping the promise" of what the voters "intent" was.

Has anyone figured out whether the general fund can support that much additional expenditure?

The City Manager was very emphatic the funds exist for O&M during a council meeting about 4 weeks ago IIRC. He further stated he saw no reason to think there would be any issues funding O&M, and this did not even consider any revenue generated by the streetcar system itself.


The smoking gun is this thread!
I asked questions, suggested folks in the transit thread don't like being questioned or challenged, and the feeding frenzy began!

Steve, as a person that thinks you do a fantastic job 99% of the time, I think you are being a bit thin skinned. You threw out some innuendo and got called on it. Your "challenge" has no legitmacy unless you can back it up - and you insinuation had nothing to do with O&M initially. There were a definite insinuation of some sort of impropriety going on within the MAPS Subcommittees and the streetcar in particular. I picked up on it in one of your chat sessions and in a couple other posts. I maintain that if you have some concrete basis for your questions and challenges, lay it out and let the chips fall where they may.

I think possibly you were fed some bogus information, and counter to your normal practice threw it out to see if anything would stick. I have a hunch where this may have started but cannot say for certain as it is only a guess. If you were as careful with your statements about this MAPS project as you are with the "mystery tower", I suspect you would not feel like you have been subjected to a "feeding frenzy". (And maybe this is making too much out of something you thought were innocuous statements - I'll accept that maybe I read something into your statement(s) you did not intend.)

As far as funding O&M for the streetcar in particular, I witnessed this topic being discussed at one of the subcommittee meetings I was able to attend. You were not there for that one Steve. To say O&M has not, and is not, being discussed or otherwise considered is misinformed at best; and disingenuous if one has knowledge of these discussions yet makes statements to the contrary.

But what "beliefs and assumptions" Steve. This is about him insinuating we should take money away from the project to fund our ailing bus service. Not "beliefs and assumptions."

we voted for maps 3 with trust in the maps brand and in the city council .... and that trust continues to be upheld .... we have a councilmen that clearly doesn't care about the maps brand nor the resolution of projects

fortunately the majority of the council does and that resolution does count for a lot .. it counts for the future of the MAPS brand

Here's your other challenge, however...
You have two council members now who were not around when that resolution was written. You could have two more after tomorrow.... I'm NOT saying it would be right for the council to not follow the resolution. But do you see how tenuous it might be?

Think about this in light of past debates, discussions over Project 180 implementation, the boulevard, etc. One final comment from me and I'm moving on - there's a lot of confusion in the whole source of this debate. Someone asked about Shadid and the comments over at OKC Talk. I mentioned that folks in the transit thread didn't like being questioned or challenged - which Shadid was doing. Make note: I didn't say Shadid was right in his questions or challenges. But sure enough, folks in the thread did not being questioned or challenged in all this. I DID NOT make any reference to the MAPS 3 transit committee.

What started this whole fuss was this answer I gave in the OKC Central chat:
It's been my observation that the streetcar advocates at OKC Talk do not like to see their beliefs or assumptions challenged or questioned - which is certainly what Shadid has done.
Shadid is being seen as challenging or questioning whether the streetcar should be implemented as desired by folks in the transit thread at OKC Talk. And you guys don't like that. At no point in this conversation have I said the streetcar advocates have made bad conclusions. At no point have I indicated it's a bad project. I do question whether planning for operation and maintenance was thought out for MAPS 3 as well as it was for the original MAPS. And I do question how firmly this project is locked in considering the great amount of discretion given the city council by voters (wittingly or not).

i don't think many people have a problem with "Shadid is being seen as challenging or questioning whether the streetcar should be implemented as desired by folks in the transit thread at OKC Talk."

i think people have a problem with Shadid not wanting to implement the street car at all

I think the issue is that he seems to be saying it shouldn't be implemented, and as a citizen and voter, I have a problem with that. What does "as desired" mean anyway? Every person who voted probably desires something a bit different and what we all get is a compromise between what we want and what we can afford, what's practical and what's possible.

But what "beliefs and assumptions" Steve. This is about him insinuating we should take money away from the project to fund our ailing bus service. Not "beliefs and assumptions."

You believe the resolution should be honored, even though as a city council member he never signed on to it. And you don't like that he's questioning whether it should be followed, right?

I consider it deceitful and paternalistic for city council members, new or old, to think that the wording of the ballot means they can decide what they now want the ballot to have meant. The wording of the resolution was quite clear. If we only had a representative form of city government, then the councilors would be given a large pot of money to do with as they pleased. When you ask the people to vote on certain issues, then you have taken the decision-making authority on that issue away from the government and given it to the people. This was a plebiscite, a unique decision-making event. The people spoke and to ignore their wishes means you certainly risk never being trusted with a similar resolution again and probably risk a concerted effort on the part of some members of the electorate to turn you out of office.

Here's your other challenge, however...
You have two council members now who were not around when that resolution was written. You could have two more after tomorrow.... I'm NOT saying it would be right for the council to not follow the resolution. But do you see how tenuous it might be?

Ahhhh - here is where I think you can be of incredible service Steve. I agree with this statement - the language in and of itself is easily construed as to permit someone to play games with MAPS funds. But to do so would be a gross violation of the public trust OKC voters have justifiably placed with our city council and mayors for the last several years.

You are part of the "fourth estate" and as such you should serve as the reminder to our elected officials the will of the voters. It is very clear what the voters intended with their votes for MAPS3 regardless of any semantic games with the language of the resolution. Just because someone was not on the council at the time of the MAPS vote does not give them a free pass to willfully violate the public trust.

we voted for maps 3 with trust in the maps brand and in the city council .... and that trust continues to be upheld .... we have a councilmen that clearly doesn't care about the maps brand nor the resolution of projects

fortunately the majority of the council does and that resolution does count for a lot .. it counts for the future of the MAPS brand

So your vote for the blank-check carried with it the implicit assumption that every councilman and/or mayor to hold those offices in the future would be duty bound to a resolution of intent?? C'mon, Boulder, we've disagreed on various things here at times, but you're too smart to pretend to be that naive (or shockingly disingenuous).

QUOTE: Ahhhh - here is where I think you can be of incredible service Steve. I agree with this statement - the language in and of itself is easily construed as to permit someone to play games with MAPS funds. But to do so would be a gross violation of the public trust OKC voters has justifiably placed with our city council and mayors for the last several years.

You are part of the "fourth estate" and as such you should serve as the reminder to our elected officials the will of the voters. It is very clear what the voters intended with their votes for MAPS3 regardless of any semantic games with the language of the resolution. Just because someone was not on the council at the time of the MAPS vote does not give them a free pass to willfully violate the public trust.

-------------------

Absolutely. Such was the case when County Commissioners tried to divert money from the Tinker runway bond package ... but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

Perhaps overlooked here is that the ballot language responsible for this situation is a direct result of state constitutional limitations on municipal funding projects. Perhaps its time we address that issue at a state constitutional level rather than wage these local political wars arising from efforts designed specifically to get around them.

Here's your other challenge, however...
You have two council members now who were not around when that resolution was written. You could have two more after tomorrow.... I'm NOT saying it would be right for the council to not follow the resolution. But do you see how tenuous it might be?

Absolutely.

Yes, SoonerDave, for the reasons I outlined above. We give our city councilors the ability to make many decisions, but if they didn't want to be bound by this resolution, either legally or ethically, then they should never have written the resolution. They should have asked for a penny sales tax to do with as they willed. If they don't feel legally bound, then they certainly should feel ethically bound, which I consider as binding as law for a public servant.

QUOTE:but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

And don't forget the $25 million put back into the contingency fund for unused substation monies. That could build more of something.

QUOTE:Absolutely. Such was the case when County Commissioners tried to divert money from the Tinker runway bond package ... but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

But any reallocation of the $120 Million in MAPS3 funds to anything other than "rail-based streetcar" would be a violation of the public trust. The language of the resolution does provide some wiggle room in the actual location of a rail based streetcar system, but that is the only aspect of the project that has much room for adjustment.

This is developing into a situation where our elected officials' performance will be evaluated on whether they do the "right thing" as opposed to the purely "legal thing".

So your vote for the blank-check carried with it the implicit assumption that every councilman and/or mayor to hold those offices in the future would be duty bound to a resolution of intent?? C'mon, Boulder, we've disagreed on various things here at times, but you're too smart to pretend to be that naive (or shockingly disingenuous).

no i understood/understand that future councilmen/mayors could disregard the resolution of intent .... however i do believe that it would/will be a "break of public trust" if they do ... as steve said there is assuredly some gray area


Perhaps overlooked here is that the ballot language responsible for this situation is a direct result of state constitutional limitations on municipal funding projects. Perhaps its time we address that issue at a state constitutional level rather than wage these local political wars arising from efforts designed specifically to get around them.

this is a great point and i hope that at some point it can be addressed ...

But any reallocation of the $120 Million in MAPS3 funds to anything other than "rail-based streetcar" would be a violation of the public trust. The language of the resolution does provide some wiggle room in the actual location of a rail based streetcar system, but that is the only aspect of the project that has much room for adjustment.

This is developing into a situation where our elected officials' performance will be evaluated on whether they do the "right thing" as opposed to the purely "legal thing".

Actually, were there line item budget amounts listed on that resolution. Recall that convention center advocates argued they were promised $280 million - and $30 million was diverted

QUOTE: Ahhhh - here is where I think you can be of incredible service Steve. I agree with this statement - the language in and of itself is easily construed as to permit someone to play games with MAPS funds. But to do so would be a gross violation of the public trust OKC voters has justifiably placed with our city council and mayors for the last several years.

You are part of the "fourth estate" and as such you should serve as the reminder to our elected officials the will of the voters. It is very clear what the voters intended with their votes for MAPS3 regardless of any semantic games with the language of the resolution. Just because someone was not on the council at the time of the MAPS vote does not give them a free pass to willfully violate the public trust.

-------------------

Absolutely. Such was the case when County Commissioners tried to divert money from the Tinker runway bond package ... but here, if the council reduces the streetcar portion of the project, but doesn't kill it, and reallocates $$ to other transit... that's where this all gets very, very interesting....

Well, if a City Council member wants to do that I say let them try it and see what happens to their political career. Does OKC have a recall procedure because I suspect that would be the fastest route to resolving the issue.

But any reallocation of the $120 Million in MAPS3 funds to anything other than "rail-based streetcar" would be a violation of the public trust. The language of the resolution does provide some wiggle room in the actual location of a rail based streetcar system, but that is the only aspect of the project that has much room for adjustment.

This is developing into a situation where our elected officials' performance will be evaluated on whether they do the "right thing" as opposed to the purely "legal thing".

You are also playing with semantics here. The right thing, IMO, is to follow the resolution as it was written. The right thing is not to determine that something missing from the resolution is "righter".

If they don't feel legally bound, then they certainly should feel ethically bound, which I consider as binding as law for a public servant.


You are also playing with semantics here. The right thing, IMO, is to follow the resolution as it was written. The right thing is not to determine that something missing from the resolution is "righter".

Not meaning to - I agree with your earlier statement. You stated my intent much better than I.

Actually, were there line item budget amounts listed on that resolution. Recall that convention center advocates argued they were promised $280 million - and $30 million was diverted

I think Mayor Cornett was very specific in stating that particular $30million was for relocating the OG&E substation IF the convention center was built on the site he strongly supported at that time. Otherwise, those funds would be available for other contingencies. I thought that money was a built in contingency fund for MAPS and Mayor Cornett was using it to persuade the site recommendation to look at the location south of the boulevard more favorably. But that was several years ago now and I may not remember it exactly right.

When they came out for reducing some of the trail mileage, there was a grunt here, a groan there, but little else.
When they came out for cutting back on the senior aquatics centers, there were a couple gosh darn its here, a grumble or three there, but little else.
When they made the cc a bigger priority than many thought it ought to be, there was an outcry, followed by begrudging acceptance and merely whispers of displeasure.
When they decided the park need not be iconic, there were some low level wails, but a quickly rising tide of acceptance.

But, dare to have someone so much as question something about the streetcars, and there is an outcry of epic proportions of the sanctity of the voter's belief in a resolution of intent that some never signed, with still more to come.

I am not anti streetcar. Like the BT canal, I think it'll serve some purpose, even though the vast majority will never bother to use it. But every last bit of M3 is subject to change, resolution or no resolution. Given the way certain 'stakeholders' treated the streetcar a while back, and it was not all that long ago, perhaps it is not surprising if folks are rather quickly on edge about it when someone else questions it.

But there is already ample precedence, within the M3 process itself, to curtail and diminish any project ... except perhaps the cc. This present round of elections might have afforded an opportunity to elect some folks who could effectively try and hold the cc hostage should there be any finagling with the streetcar. Just a guess but I'm pretty sure that won't be the outcome of this year's elections.

But if one takes a long objective look at all M3 projects to date, and dispenses with all the but they can't, it would be wrong to mess with it pablum, it might become clear that to many, the streetcar is but one of many options, and a resolution is simply that, a resolution. not saying that is right or wrong. Only that it is.

The notion that folks who were not running the city in 09 are forever bound to what was a majority rule statement of intent from 09 ... well, that's just a bit special. As for the violation of voter's trust and expectations ... you have way more faith in the long term memories of the voter collective than most folks do.

Again, I hope the streetcar goes forward. That said, it is no more a given than any of the other projects in that resolution, many of which are mere shadows of their sale pitches.

Wishing the LIKE button worked :)

On the money, kevinpate. On the money.

Wishing the LIKE button worked :)

On the money, kevinpate. On the money.

Agreed. kevinpate's was the most sensible thing I've read thus far in this thread.

When they came out for reducing some of the trail mileage, there was a grunt here, a groan there, but little else.
When they came out for cutting back on the senior aquatics centers, there were a couple gosh darn its here, a grumble or three there, but little else.
When they made the cc a bigger priority than many thought it ought to be, there was an outcry, followed by begrudging acceptance and merely whispers of displeasure.
When they decided the park need not be iconic, there were some low level wails, but a quickly rising tide of acceptance.

But, dare to have someone so much as question something about the streetcars, and there is an outcry of epic proportions of the sanctity of the voter's belief in a resolution of intent that some never signed, with still more to come.

I am not anti streetcar. Like the BT canal, I think it'll serve some purpose, even though the vast majority will never bother to use it. But every last bit of M3 is subject to change, resolution or no resolution. Given the way certain 'stakeholders' treated the streetcar a while back, and it was not all that long ago, perhaps it is not surprising if folks are rather quickly on edge about it when someone else questions it.

But there is already ample precedence, within the M3 process itself, to curtail and diminish any project ... except perhaps the cc. This present round of elections might have afforded an opportunity to elect some folks who could effectively try and hold the cc hostage should there be any finagling with the streetcar. Just a guess but I'm pretty sure that won't be the outcome of this year's elections.

But if one takes a long objective look at all M3 projects to date, and dispenses with all the but they can't, it would be wrong to mess with it pablum, it might become clear that to many, the streetcar is but one of many options, and a resolution is simply that, a resolution. not saying that is right or wrong. Only that it is.

The notion that folks who were not running the city in 09 are forever bound to what was a majority rule statement of intent from 09 ... well, that's just a bit special. As for the violation of voter's trust and expectations ... you have way more faith in the long term memories of the voter collective than most folks do.

Again, I hope the streetcar goes forward. That said, it is no more a given than any of the other projects in that resolution, many of which are mere shadows of their sale pitches.

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the trails

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the senior centers

a councilmen is talking about diverting money from/cutting the streetcar ..

apples and oranges

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the trails

they didn't cut or divert the funding for the senior centers

a councilmen is talking about diverting money from/cutting the streetcar ..

apples and oranges

Exactly! When the route of the streetcar was shortened it was near universally accepted.

I think Mayor Cornett was very specific in stating that particular $30million was for relocating the OG&E substation IF the convention center was built on the site he strongly supported at that time. Otherwise, those funds would be available for other contingencies. I thought that money was a built in contingency fund for MAPS and Mayor Cornett was using it to persuade the site recommendation to look at the location south of the boulevard more favorably. But that was several years ago now and I may not remember it exactly right.

You are correct. The $30 million was to fund the movement of the substation, and since the CC location doesn't require that the money goes back into MAPS III. If that is something the CC subcommittee doesn't like they should have taken that into consideration or got clarification on BEFORE they picked a location. Now, if they decide to go back to the substation site I fully expect the $30 million would be restored.

Wishing the LIKE button worked :)

On the money, kevinpate. On the money.

I recall you opposing MAPS for the new arena and MAPS 3. Of course you would like his comment. And you probably, logically, don't care if there's a MAPS 4. Since he didn't vote in the preceding MAPS elections, I suspect Councilman Shadid doesn't either. I remember a fair amount of uproar about the sidewalks. No one was happy there were going to be fewer miles. But, with sidewalks it's a question of them needing to be wider and costing more than budgeted. No one has taken money away from the sidewalk budget or said we're not building sidewalks. No one has said we're spending the sidewalk money on something different. I'm not aware that the senior centers are not being funded or that money is being taken from their budget. I know the city would like to find partners to help run them and has been looking. I think if the city announces there will be no senior centers, there will be a significantly negative response as well. And there should be. However, responses are usually proportional to interest and support. If there's been more of a response to the suggestion of not funding the streetcar, that probably indicates voter interest and investment were higher.

Betts I think that is Okiedave. But maybe not.

When they came out for reducing some of the trail mileage, there was a grunt here, a groan there, but little else.
When they came out for cutting back on the senior aquatics centers, there were a couple gosh darn its here, a grumble or three there, but little else.
When they made the cc a bigger priority than many thought it ought to be, there was an outcry, followed by begrudging acceptance and merely whispers of displeasure.
When they decided the park need not be iconic, there were some low level wails, but a quickly rising tide of acceptance.

But, dare to have someone so much as question something about the streetcars, and there is an outcry of epic proportions of the sanctity of the voter's belief in a resolution of intent that some never signed, with still more to come.

That's hilarious and accurate. And it shows how many people care about this project. I can assure you as MTP director, it goes beyond the posters on here. And those same people want a system change to the entire system as well. If we're going to be a big city, were going to have to act like a big city. Build rail, build bus, build transit. And this project is the first meaningful step in maintaining support for more to come.

I recall you opposing MAPS for the new arena and MAPS 3. Of course you would like his comment. And you probably, logically, don't care if there's a MAPS 4. Since he didn't vote in the preceding MAPS elections, I suspect Councilman Shadid doesn't either. I remember a fair amount of uproar about the sidewalks. No one was happy there were going to be fewer miles. But, with sidewalks it's a question of them needing to be wider and costing more than budgeted. No one has taken money away from the sidewalk budget or said we're not building sidewalks. No one has said we're spending the sidewalk money on something different. I'm not aware that the senior centers are not being funded or that money is being taken from their budget. I know the city would like to find partners to help run them and has been looking. I think if the city announces there will be no senior centers, there will be a significantly negative response as well. And there should be. However, responses are usually proportional to interest and support. If there's been more of a response to the suggestion of not funding the streetcar, that probably indicates voter interest and investment were higher.

You are mistaken.

I enthusiastically supported and voted for the original MAPS projects. I opposed MAPS for Kids because throwing money at OKC schools wasn't going to solve their problems. I opposed MAPS3 because of PRECISELY the horrendous ballot language that has induced the very kind of discussion in this thread - the blank check promise that OKC voters were voting for whatever future five members of the city council decided they wanted. And I make no secret of the fact that I supported construction of a new convention center even though it was apparent from most polling data that the broader cross-section of OKC voters did not, so much so that it essentially initiated the "non-log-rolling log-rolling" that became the MAPS3 ballot with all of the other sugar to draw in enough votes to get the convention center passed.

You are mistaken.

I enthusiastically supported and voted for the original MAPS projects. I opposed MAPS for Kids because throwing money at OKC schools wasn't going to solve their problems. I opposed MAPS3 because of PRECISELY the horrendous ballot language that has induced the very kind of discussion in this thread - the blank check promise that OKC voters were voting for whatever future five members of the city council decided they wanted. And I make no secret of the fact that I supported construction of a new convention center even though it was apparent from most polling data that the broader cross-section of OKC voters did not, so much so that it essentially initiated the "non-log-rolling log-rolling" that became the MAPS3 ballot with all of the other sugar to draw in enough votes to get the convention center passed.

I will chime in and say the ballot language was not the city's call.

MAPS 3 ballot won?t detail individual projects | News OK (http://newsok.com/maps-3-ballot-wont-detail-individual-projects/article/3415497)


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.
The law is why the MAPS 3 ballot will look dramatically different from its predecessors.

I will chime in and say the ballot language was not the city's call.

MAPS 3 ballot won?t detail individual projects | News OK (http://newsok.com/maps-3-ballot-wont-detail-individual-projects/article/3415497)

And I will counter that there was zero effort expended in creating a cost and funding structure as a series of rolling one-year accounts that would have satisfied the spirit of the law, particularly given there was no challenge to the original ballot language, which was just as "illegal."

Further, your comment is on the money with my earlier notion that all this nonsense is a direct result of those very constitutional issues, meaning that the real problem needs to be addressed at that level. This "non-log-rolling log rolling" is precisely the mess we're in right now.

If they want to fix MAPS then I suggest the following format.

Determine how many projects and then divide the penny by that many shares. Each month the city transfer the monthly take into an account for each project and the committees spend their money accordingly. As projects become fully funded their share of the penny drops off. When all funds have been raised the tax expires. The projects are built according to how fast the money is raised.

Here is an example:

The City proposes 6 MAPS projects

Project 1 ($10 million)
Project 2($15 million)
Project 3 ($40 million)
Project 4 ($60 million)
Project 5 ($120 million)
Project 6 ($300 million)

Each project is on the ballot by itself and the dollar amount needed. During the election Project 3 doesn't pass.
This leaves us with 5 projects, so each month each project gets 1/5 of the MAPS pie.

In 12 months the first project is fully funded so the remaining projects start splitting the pie 4 ways.

In 5 years all projects except the last one are fully funded so the whole penny goes to project 6 until it fully funded - and then the tax ends.

Committees can start spending on their projects as soon as they have sufficient funds to start doing whatever they need done.

That format should solve any issue we currently have.

You believe the resolution should be honored, even though as a city council member he never signed on to it. And you don't like that he's questioning whether it should be followed, right?

Is that all you got? Wow. You've jumped the shark.

This whole thread speaks for itself - especially your comments Sooner.

This whole thread speaks for itself - especially your comments Sooner.

Weak.

1. You try to skim over your misreading of the resolution.

2. You fail to acknowledge members' concerns about Shadid's intentions until last night.

3. You quickly try to backtrack from your chat comment with a flimsy rationale.

I think that speaks volumes.

...

I'm not backtracking at all.... I'll shout it out next time: folks in this thread do not appear to like having their interests questioned or challenged. At this point, we're at an impasse Sooner. And that turns into a flame and a hijacking of the thread. So I'm gonna let others figure out what's what, and not worry about whatever you type next on your keyboard.

I think it's horrible the way Steve has been treated in this thread. All the good he does and you disagree with him, or think you do, on ONE thing and you treat him like an enemy. Steve cares about Oklahoma City as much as anyone possibly could, he works his butt off, he reports to you things you would never have known otherwise, he hosts open chats, he's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Sorry, Steve.

Not sure if serious.

I think it's horrible the way Steve has been treated in this thread. All the good he does and you disagree with him, or think you do, on ONE thing and you treat him like an enemy. Steve cares about Oklahoma City as much as anyone possibly could, he works his butt off, he reports to you things you would never have known otherwise, he hosts open chats, he's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Sorry, Steve.

I happen to think Steve does a good job, just not so much this time. When I think he does a great job, I let him know. It's OK to discuss issues with reporting. Reporters are not above being questioned. We all care about OKC, and I don't think anyone insinuated that Steve does not. The discussion was limited to his reporting on the streetcar and Ed Shadid. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm sure Steve will be fine.

I think it's horrible the way Steve has been treated in this thread. All the good he does and you disagree with him, or think you do, on ONE thing and you treat him like an enemy. Steve cares about Oklahoma City as much as anyone possibly could, he works his butt off, he reports to you things you would never have known otherwise, he hosts open chats, he's a good guy and doesn't deserve this crap. Sorry, Steve.

Not really trying to get involved with this rage cage, but +1. Steve is half the reason I even care so much about OKC.

When they came out for reducing some of the trail mileage, there was a grunt here, a groan there, but little else.
When they came out for cutting back on the senior aquatics centers, there were a couple gosh darn its here, a grumble or three there, but little else.
When they made the cc a bigger priority than many thought it ought to be, there was an outcry, followed by begrudging acceptance and merely whispers of displeasure.
When they decided the park need not be iconic, there were some low level wails, but a quickly rising tide of acceptance.

But, dare to have someone so much as question something about the streetcars, and there is an outcry of epic proportions of the sanctity of the voter's belief in a resolution of intent that some never signed, with still more to come.

I am not anti streetcar. Like the BT canal, I think it'll serve some purpose, even though the vast majority will never bother to use it. But every last bit of M3 is subject to change, resolution or no resolution. Given the way certain 'stakeholders' treated the streetcar a while back, and it was not all that long ago, perhaps it is not surprising if folks are rather quickly on edge about it when someone else questions it.

But there is already ample precedence, within the M3 process itself, to curtail and diminish any project ... except perhaps the cc. This present round of elections might have afforded an opportunity to elect some folks who could effectively try and hold the cc hostage should there be any finagling with the streetcar. Just a guess but I'm pretty sure that won't be the outcome of this year's elections.

But if one takes a long objective look at all M3 projects to date, and dispenses with all the but they can't, it would be wrong to mess with it pablum, it might become clear that to many, the streetcar is but one of many options, and a resolution is simply that, a resolution. not saying that is right or wrong. Only that it is.

The notion that folks who were not running the city in 09 are forever bound to what was a majority rule statement of intent from 09 ... well, that's just a bit special. As for the violation of voter's trust and expectations ... you have way more faith in the long term memories of the voter collective than most folks do.

Again, I hope the streetcar goes forward. That said, it is no more a given than any of the other projects in that resolution, many of which are mere shadows of their sale pitches.

Well said and spot-on.

I'm not backtracking at all.... I'll shout it out next time: folks in this thread do not appear to like having their interests questioned or challenged. At this point, we're at an impasse Sooner. And that turns into a flame and a hijacking of the thread. So I'm gonna let others figure out what's what, and not worry about whatever you type next on your keyboard.

Steve, we all know that people get most interested and vocal when it is THEIR ox that is getting gored. You just got too close to his ox.

Know that nearly everyone on here respects how you are able to stay objective and truthful while others get emotional and exhibit bias. You have a real gift. Don't let anyone drag you into the gutter.

The smoking gun is this thread!
I asked questions, suggested folks in the transit thread don't like being questioned or challenged, and the feeding frenzy began!

Yeah but are we really going to torpedo a voter-approved streetcar system over these petty arguments? Just from my perspective of being blind-sided by all this infighting, "asking questions" is coming off exactly the same as "just defending from attacks." Obviously each side is going to swear up and down that they're "just replying" or "just questioning."

To me this is "just infighting" and nothing else. To pull the Tulsa card appears to be a bit late in my book. And if you ask me, this is all because the first few years of MAPS3 wasn't really done the right way and everybody knows it. We need to stop pointing fingers all around and see how the city can move forward and still accomplish the amazing vision we collectively bought in on.

What are the questions that we are "just asking?"

Well said.

I balled my eyes out when they told us we would only be getting a little over half the sidewalk miles. Okay, maybe that's a little bit of an exaggeration. :)

I was also similarly disappointed by this. However, the reasoning given for the reduction was poor projecting. Money was not actually taken away from the project.

What are the questions that we are "just asking?"

Good question.

And by the way, I'd be upset too. Like I've said before, the streetcar must be built.

I agree, but I would be more upset if the city took money away from the streetcar. In the case of the sidewalks, they did not, they just didn't do the best job of budget planning.

I also gotta point out it appears a LOT of people getting defensive about the streetcar aren't on the committee.

You are mistaken.

I enthusiastically supported and voted for the original MAPS projects. I opposed MAPS for Kids because throwing money at OKC schools wasn't going to solve their problems. I opposed MAPS3 because of PRECISELY the horrendous ballot language that has induced the very kind of discussion in this thread - the blank check promise that OKC voters were voting for whatever future five members of the city council decided they wanted. And I make no secret of the fact that I supported construction of a new convention center even though it was apparent from most polling data that the broader cross-section of OKC voters did not, so much so that it essentially initiated the "non-log-rolling log-rolling" that became the MAPS3 ballot with all of the other sugar to draw in enough votes to get the convention center passed.

Sorry, I confused you with OkieDave. Sooner/Okie sound similar. And the message was similar.

There is so much irony here. I actually lol'ed. Thanks for that. :)

I did a poor job of saying what I meant to say. No irony. I was upset about the sidewalks being shorted. But their shorting was not the result of their budget being reduced or reallocated. Still, it is very disappointing to say the least.

The questions I'm hearing, and I think it's probably best that Ed gets to ask them himself - which I hear he has offered to do with Sooner and Urban Pioneer and others - is whether the plan presented to voters was the best way to boost public transit, and whether a pure streetcar system without other improvements to overall transit is the best way to go. He has also asked similar questions about the convention center, and while it's difficult to find advocates for the convention center at OKC Talk, the chamber, though far more sophisticated and above personal insults (at least in public), pretty much was just as hostile. Look back at this thread - I've been attacked as being lame in my comments, having a lack of objectivity and professionalism, and so on and so forth, and sometimes by people who I would have hoped would know better. To accuse me of being against public transit, or light rail, also bewilders me. To put it into context - I asked some very annoying questions to Public Works about Project 180 implementation, but that does not mean I'm anti- Project 180.
Sooner, your anger at me and others confounds me.... and Jeff, you know I've been fair to you in my reporting. To those expressing support, thanks. I think I should be questioned - but the attacks make no sense.