I also have a good feeling about the XFL making it. OKC should make a big push and try to secure a future spot . I don't think this would interfere with the Thunder in any way. The problem with building a new stadium for XFL is what else can you use the stadium for? Soccer and what else? How many XFL games per year would they play in a new stadium? Maybe 5. Have to be able to make it somewhat feasible to build. XFL teams will be playing in major stadiums from what I understand.

non of this is true so far the AAF has more proven NFL experienced coaches and more importantly management also the XFL in year 1 and 2 will have talent at a level below the AAF

for instance no one playing in the AAF this season can be on an XFL roster until XFL year 3 ...

also the AAF has great tv deals currently we will see if the XFL can get close ..

the XFL if it makes year 4 will still not be remotly close to offering NFL guys contracts

What? Of known coaches, the AAF has Mike Singletary, Rick Neuheisel, Mike Martz, Dennis Erickson, and Steve Spurrier. And those are all great names. Knock being two of them are over 70 and one has had some off the field issues. But overall I'd say the first few hires in the XFL rival that pretty well so far.

As far as players playing in the XFL, the XFL can sign any players that wants tinplate for them. I can't find ANYTHING that says an AAF player can't jump to the XFL. Oliver Luck, the XFL commissioner has stated they will go after any and everyone the can. With a starting pay of $200,000. That's higher than the AAF. The AAF isn't taking anybody off an active NFL roster, but the XFL could. Now, I doubt they will, but they could, since they aren't trying to be a developmental league to the NFL, but their own separate league.

And the AAF does not have great TV deals. They're on the CBS sports network, NOT CBS. Also the NFL Network. McMahon and Luck have already said they've got a contract working with an OTA channel, probably FOX. That's waaaaaaay more views.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to argue the XFL is better than the AAF. Personally I think the will merge eventually. Unless the NFL buys out the AAF.

Either way, the point is, I fully believe the AAF/XFL will be successful. And I think OKC needs a stadium for a team. Since we have this proposal, we need to make it bigger and get on the bandwagon fast for the MLS and AAF/XFL.

What? Of known coaches, the AAF has Mike Singletary, Rick Neuheisel, Mike Martz, Dennis Erickson, and Steve Spurrier. And those are all great names. Knock being two of them are over 70 and one has had some off the field issues. But overall I'd say the first few hires in the XFL rival that pretty well so far.

As far as players playing in the XFL, the XFL can sign any players that wants tinplate for them. I can't find ANYTHING that says an AAF player can't jump to the XFL. Oliver Luck, the XFL commissioner has stated they will go after any and everyone the can. With a starting pay of $200,000. That's higher than the AAF. The AAF isn't taking anybody off an active NFL roster, but the XFL could. Now, I doubt they will, but they could, since they aren't trying to be a developmental league to the NFL, but their own separate league.

And the AAF does not have great TV deals. They're on the CBS sports network, NOT CBS. Also the NFL Network. McMahon and Luck have already said they've got a contract working with an OTA channel, probably FOX. That's waaaaaaay more views.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to argue the XFL is better than the AAF. Personally I think the will merge eventually. Unless the NFL buys out the AAF.

Either way, the point is, I fully believe the AAF/XFL will be successful. And I think OKC needs a stadium for a team. Since we have this proposal, we need to make it bigger and get on the bandwagon fast for the MLS and AAF/XFL.

aaf players all signed 3 year contracts with the only out being the NFL

aaf players all signed 3 year contracts with the only out being the NFL

Ah, didn't know that. Either way, it's if no real consequence. Makes the competition between the 2 leagues better, in my opinion.

https://arenadigest.com/images/stories/nhl/okcfordctrimg_2905w.jpg

I recall when the first MAPS had to have a 6 months extension to ensure that all the projects would be built. There were calls to eliminate The Peake if the extension vote didn't go through. It was believed that since we couldn't fill the Myriad Convention Center Arena; why would we need a 20,000-seat Indoor Arena.


December 1998 MAPS tax extension approved
Voters overwhelmingly answered the mayor’s call to "finish MAPS right,” with 67 percent approving a six-month extension of the MAPS tax. "We’re the only city in America to have passed something like MAPS, and now we’ve done it twice,” Humphreys said at an election watch party.

History of the MAPS projects TIMELINE timeline: https://newsok.com/article/3454837/history-of-the-maps-projects-timeline-timeline

Wouldn't want to lose the MAPS brand. City officials have given voters 'a say' in approving the penny sales tax initiative.

OKC is football country. If there were a stadium for these teams to play in, l have no doubt one of the new leagues would place a team here.

OKC is football country. If there were a stadium for these teams to play in, l have no doubt one of the new leagues would place a team here.

I am not convinced that those leagues will still be around by the time the MAPS 4 vote takes place, let a lone by the time the stadium is built.

by the time the MAPS 4 vote takes place, let a lone by the time the stadium is built.

This would seem to be an important point. Even if a MAPS4 stadium is the first project to be constructed, we're not looking at it being complete until, what, probably 2025 at the earliest and more likely the late 2020s/early 2030s? This is a good reason not to make decisions based on short term trends but also a good reason to place an emphasis on long-term sporting trends and future demographic changes throughout the state (even if soccer wouldn't seem to warrant such an investment based on the sport's current popularity in the state).

As soon as the MAPS IV sales tax extension is passed and enough funds are collected; look for the stadium, arena & possibly a potential Bricktown Canal extension to be among the first 3 projects to be built. The infrastructure IIRC (fiber glass pipes) for a canal extension were put in place in 2009; unfortunately a canal extension didn't get on MAPS 3.

Other factors: How long the USL will give OKC to get into a soccer specific stadium beyond 2020 if one is funded. As Timshel mentioned it could be in the 2025-2030 range. Funk-McLaughlin will probably make a decision around 2022-2023 whether to commit to MLS expansion/relocation at which time the stadium construction could be in-progress with a quick decision to expand seating.

We have no idea how many teams the MLS will expand; some say 32, 36 or 40. One thing appear to be consistent about MLS expansion; they are going after the 2 million MSA markets first; however financial backing, stadium and name-recognition like Oklahoma City & Louisville will be a factor.

The 37 acre Producer's Coop Mill site once wanted around $3 million an acre; with the recent contamination & clean-up they won't get that price.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/soccer/major-league-soccer-says-other-cities-will-have-to-wait/article_e30ee7e6-0761-53b7-b2de-0adc8b6226ad.html
Open link incognito to see free.
This 20k+ seat MLS stadium will cost the owners a bit over 200 mil. and that is not counting the land cost. Plus they are getting about 60 mil. in TIF. It appears it's going to be Stl & Sacramento on the next expansion list and then a few other cities after that. I haven't seen OKC on any recent list that projects future MLS teams. I'm thinking if they are going to have a soccer stadium on maps it will have to be on this upcoming one. The next one could have a new expensive NBA arena on there.

As soon as the MAPS IV sales tax extension is passed and enough funds are collected; look for the stadium, arena & possibly a potential Bricktown Canal extension to be among the first 3 projects to be built. The infrastructure IIRC (fiber glass pipes) for a canal extension were put in place in 2009; unfortunately a canal extension didn't get on MAPS 3.

Other factors: How long the USL will give OKC to get into a soccer specific stadium beyond 2020 if one is funded. As Timshel mentioned it could be in the 2025-2030 range. Funk-McLaughlin will probably make a decision around 2022-2023 whether to commit to MLS expansion/relocation at which time the stadium construction could be in-progress with a quick decision to expand seating.

We have no idea how many teams the MLS will expand; some say 32, 36 or 40. One thing appear to be consistent about MLS expansion; they are going after the 2 million MSA markets first; however financial backing, stadium and name-recognition like Oklahoma City & Louisville will be a factor.

The 37 acre Producer's Coop Mill site once wanted around $3 million an acre; with the recent contamination & clean-up they won't get that price.

there has not been infrastructure build for a canal extension and that won't be a Maps4 project anyway (it will likely get build as part of the TIF that goes to the coop site project

the energy has not shown any thing that would make anyone think they can/will pay over 200 mil to get a MLS expansion team

the producers mill site is worth more than the 3 mil an acre now and a big plan for that site is still moving forward

Would love to see the big plans the Coop Mill owners have for the site.


Producers Cooperative put its 43 acres just south of Bricktown on the market in early 2010 for $120 million, an asking price widely seen as well outside the realm of reason: $2,790,698 per acre, or $64 per square foot.

A year later, the mill offered to sell the city 15 acres as a convention center site for $41.8 million, sweetening the pitch by agreeing to contribute $3 million to extend Bricktown Canal through the property.

Not so sure the Oklahomans' Richard Mize is a dependable source to use: https://newsok.com/article/4850516/producers-cooperative-oil-mill-plans-to-sell-most-of-its-land-but-will-remain-just-south-of-oklahoma-citys-bricktown Didn't Mize fumble the ball on a recent project reported by OKCTalk?

City needs to consider city-owned land for a stadium on the riverfront, agree BoulderSooner it probably won't include a Bricktown Canal extension; however if the canal is extended into that area it will up the ante on the acreage; however I doubt if they will get anywhere near $3 million an acre.

Aren't we long past the expected date of when the Coop site owners had been rumored to release their plans? Or are we just still waiting on that?

Aren't we long past the expected date of when the Coop site owners had been rumored to release their plans? Or are we just still waiting on that?

I think there were unanticipated snags with railroad easements that hung everything up. Railroads hate change, or helping anyone but themselves. So nothing can be done til that gets sorted out.

I think there were unanticipated snags with railroad easements that hung everything up. Railroads hate change, or helping anyone but themselves. So nothing can be done til that gets sorted out.

Looks like there's a change or sting of obstacles associated with the canal extension.

My badd on post #789; infrastructure for the arena, not the canal.

Just want to clarify something on the stadium.

Whether or not Funk-McLaughlin decide to apply for MLS expansion; the stadium has potential to attract a number of events. We can begin with 10,000-seats; however with a venue in the 22,000-30,000-seat range will afford us more events to bid on, also it would be inexpensive to go ahead and build than expand.

Funks' tract record doesn't bode well with those of us who have followed sports. McLaughlin just may be the key to change what the family alone couldn't accomplish.

For reference from here (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=20121&page=338&p=1069302#post1069302) (and originally here (https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/okc-mayor-mick-cornett-plans-to-educate-about-777-million-proposal/Content?oid=2962958)) since I went to the trouble of looking it up for the Streetcar thread.

For the MAPS 3 potential projects, polling ahead of time had the following popularity results:


50% - Outdoor improvements, like parks and trails
50% - Constructing a streetcar system
36% - Development of a 70-acre downtown central park
27% - New convention center
26% - Improvements to the Oklahoma River
11% - State Fairgrounds exhibit pavilion space

I'd be curious to see how things poll this time around, particularly since the State Fairgrounds are looking for another hand out from our tax dollars.

Given the recent tragic incident at NW 16th and Classen, I'm of the mind that a huge chunk of any future MAPS project should be a transformational bike/walk network.

Not just recreational trails (of which we now have some great, long routes) but dedicated bike lanes that would allow people to bike throughout at least the middle of the city.

It's embarrasing how far behind we are in this area. Not to be a smug former Californian, but even in the outlying areas there were dedicated bike lanes on almost every main thoroughfare, and usually on both sides of the road.

We need to start making good progress in this area and we have yet to really begin.

^ Here in Colorado Springs most streets have dedicated bike lanes, despite being an extremely unfriendly city for pedestrians and cyclists.

^ Here in Colorado Springs most streets have dedicated bike lanes, despite being an extremely unfriendly city for pedestrians and cyclists.

I don't understand?

Aren't those points contradictory?

I don't understand?

Aren't those points contradictory?

Just imagine northwest expressway with a bike lane on every street. It’s not “friendly” to it; but at least you can do it if you want to.

Just imagine northwest expressway with a bike lane on every street. It’s not “friendly” to it; but at least you can do it if you want to.

That's still way, way better than what we have now.

That's still way, way better than what we have now.

Exactly. That’s my point, even in an unwalkable city they are everywhere up here. Choice is not a bad thing.

I was trying to remember the exact number but weren't the number of sidewalk miles cut form the original proposal for maps 3? With how much extra it's pulled in and the other projects have been beefing up their budgets it would have been nice to add more miles back in. People are always on the roads biking in the northwest side of the city( just like other areas I'm sure) and they have been 4 laneing all the roads which would have been the perfect side to buy a few more feet of ROW and put in bike lanes now rather than having to tear everything back up in a few years.

I thought most of what was cut early on was eventually added back in, but don't remember for certain.

I was trying to remember the exact number but weren't the number of sidewalk miles cut form the original proposal for maps 3? With how much extra it's pulled in and the other projects have been beefing up their budgets it would have been nice to add more miles back in. People are always on the roads biking in the northwest side of the city( just like other areas I'm sure) and they have been 4 laneing all the roads which would have been the perfect side to buy a few more feet of ROW and put in bike lanes now rather than having to tear everything back up in a few years.

They should be putting in 8' bikepath/sidewalk along all those new 4-lane roads like they've been doing in Edmond. Or better yet, spend all that widening money on places that actually have cars on them.

If they use Maps 4 taxes for anything other than what we voted for I'm Done. They start pulling at your heart strings for the mental health problems at the County Jail, and moving Maps tax dollars to that area. Once they do this it will be a never-ending ordeal.

If they use Maps 4 taxes for anything other than what we voted for I'm Done. They start pulling at your heart strings for the mental health problems at the County Jail, and moving Maps tax dollars to that area. Once they do this it will be a never-ending ordeal.

When Oklahoma AG Mike Hunter gets through with his lawsuits against the opioid drug pharmaceuticals; there should be money to fund mental health treatment & facilities in Oklahoma & Tulsa counties.

Oklahoma County needs to decide ASAP what they will do to build a new county jail facility before we commit any funds to the current facility.

Reported in 2015 - Tax plan to build new Oklahoma County jail takes shape: https://newsok.com/article/5409282/tax-plan-to-build-new-oklahoma-county-jail-takes-shape

I know that with the size of our city it’s a bit of a wash, but it’s also important to remember that the jail is a county problem and not a city problem.

I know that with the size of our city it’s a bit of a wash, but it’s also important to remember that the jail is a county problem and not a city problem.

Plus with Ok leading the way in incarcerations they will surely need many more cells.

They won't need more cells if they reduce the population that is mentally ill and shouldn't be in a prison.

If they use Maps 4 taxes for anything other than what we voted for I'm Done. They start pulling at your heart strings for the mental health problems at the County Jail, and moving Maps tax dollars to that area. Once they do this it will be a never-ending ordeal.

They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters. This also won't happen because the County Commissioners who oversee the jail have no authority or access to dictate how municipal revenue should be spent. What likely needs to happen is an increase in taxes county-wide.

Good luck getting Commissioner Calvey to agree to any kind of tax increase while he's showboating as County Commissioner to try to get elected to CD5.

They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters. This also won't happen because the County Commissioners who oversee the jail have no authority or access to dictate how municipal revenue should be spent. What likely needs to happen is an increase in taxes county-wide.

Good luck getting Commissioner Calvey to agree to any kind of tax increase while he's showboating as County Commissioner to try to get elected to CD5.

The statement that in the MAPS program "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" is a point of confusion for many who opine about the MAPS program and needs to be clarified prior to any MAPS 4 vote.

In the first MAPS vote the MAPS projects were listed on the ballot and the statement "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" would have been a true statement (for MAPS1).

However, subsequent Supreme Court opinions convinced the City's Municipal Counselor that placing multiple, unrelated projects on the same ballot question (as was done in the first MAPS vote) would be considered logrolling by the courts (forcing voters to make an unpalatable choice for a project they don't want in order to tax themselves for a project(s) they do want). So with MAPS3, all the voters actually voted on was a 1 cent sales tax for 7+ years for "capital projects" along with a non-binding resolution at the time of the vote from the council stating that the intent of the present council was to spend the money on a list of projects with each project listed (but without a specified budget for each project). But councils turnover over time, and one council cannot legally bind future councils in terms of how the budget is spent and therefore, legally, a council can do whatever they saw fit with the MAPS funds as long as they were spending money on capital projects (as opposed to operations/maintenance spending). There is no legal obligation whatsoever to spend the money exclusively on the projects listed in the council resolution.

Councils have spent the money exclusively on the projects listed on the council resolutions because they felt that to do otherwise would break a bond with the voters and imperil the MAPS program. The question that raises, which to date has not been tested in the courts, is when you have a 20+year history of the council spending the tax exclusively on the projects listed, are the voters being subjected to logrolling due to the circumvention of the law by the City. The change in tactic (not listing the projects on the ballot as previously practiced, and which we do on GO Bond votes but having a non-binding resolution of the council state the projects) is clearly in response to the City knowing that it is practicing logrolling and could not legally place the different projects on the same ballot IMO. It is my experience that most people are under the same impression that you expressed ("they can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters") and so the City is effectively, and deceptively, practicing what the Supreme Court has so strongly frowned upon (logrolling unrelated projects into one vote).

The statement that in the MAPS program "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" is a point of confusion for many who opine about the MAPS program and needs to be clarified prior to any MAPS 4 vote.

In the first MAPS vote the MAPS projects were listed on the ballot and the statement "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" would have been a true statement (for MAPS1).

However, subsequent Supreme Court opinions convinced the City's Municipal Counselor that placing multiple, unrelated projects on the same ballot question (as was done in the first MAPS vote) would be considered logrolling by the courts (forcing voters to make an unpalatable choice for a project they don't want in order to tax themselves for a project(s) they do want). So with MAPS3, all the voters actually voted on was a 1 cent sales tax for 7+ years for "capital projects" along with a non-binding resolution at the time of the vote from the council stating that the intent of the present council was to spend the money on a list of projects with each project listed (but without a specified budget for each project). But councils turnover over time, and one council cannot legally bind future councils in terms of how the budget is spent and therefore, legally, a council can do whatever they saw fit with the MAPS funds as long as they were spending money on capital projects (as opposed to operations/maintenance spending). There is no legal obligation whatsoever to spend the money exclusively on the projects listed in the council resolution.

Councils have spent the money exclusively on the projects listed on the council resolutions because they felt that to do otherwise would break a bond with the voters and imperil the MAPS program. The question that raises, which to date has not been tested in the courts, is when you have a 20+year history of the council spending the tax exclusively on the projects listed, are the voters being subjected to logrolling due to the circumvention of the law by the City. The change in tactic (not listing the projects on the ballot as previously practiced, and which we do on GO Bond votes but having a non-binding resolution of the council state the projects) is clearly in response to the City knowing that it is practicing logrolling and could not legally place the different projects on the same ballot IMO. It is my experience that most people are under the same impression that you expressed ("they can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters") and so the City is effectively, and deceptively, practicing what the Supreme Court has so strongly frowned upon (logrolling unrelated projects into one vote).

Thank you for a well written reply. My comments:

1. I am having a hard time getting my councilman to get in touch with me. He made one attempt and while driving I use bluetooth and answered but no one was there. I returned call and no answer. I will vote him out next election he does not respond and has all my info (so should see I vote every time as my priveledge of being an American.

2. In my opinion we have passed the point of bundling regardless if its legal or not. If a voter has to be tricked into voting things they don’t approve of this is not good for the city. I am 100% agaknst spending more money on streetcar until we see it for at least 2-3 years if not more. So, if they bundle a Maps4 and have streetcar in it my vote is a solid no regardless what good projects are in it.

We need to start letting major projects stand on their own merit. We have lots of needs in both city and county. Everyone wants a tax added and we cannot keep adding projects which add future upkeep costs too.

So for the sake of the city they need to add projects as singular line items on any future ballot. And I am not alone in this sentiment.

Thank you for the explanation, Ed. I really appreciate when people in the know share their knowledge and perspective on this board.

Voting yes for the original MAPS was easy. All Sports Stadium was a pit, was in terrible shape. The Myriad was aging. We had a " river " that had to be mowed twice a year and was an eyesore. The vision for Bricktown was worth the investment.

MAPS for Kids was needed. I'd prefer to see the property owners in that school district vote for those improvements and tax themselves through bond issues to pay for it. But realistically, that was never gonna happen. And this sales tax money would free OKCPS from a lot of maintenance and capital expense , and they could put that money into operations. I'm mostly happy with my yes vote, except I read an article last year on NPR, where an OKCPS teacher was complaining that she had no air conditioning in her classroom, and it made me wonder what happened to the $700 million we voted for them to fix those type of problems.

MAPS3 was an iffy vote for me, but I voted yes. In spite of not knowing anything about street cars. And I knew even less about the other major project , the whitewater course. In retrospect, knowing what I know now about both, I would've voted no.

And its gonna take a major " home run " project to get a yes vote from me on a MAPS4. And if they log roll projects together, then I'm really done. I will vote for none of it. MAPS has runs its course. Its reached the stage of people searching for ways to spend money, and that alone should set off red flags. The needs are not apparent, like the old All Sports Stadium, etc. And they're spending other people's money on other people. And that's a sure fire course to boondoggle and waste, if we've not already arrived.

I'm also concerned about the operating expense for each of these projects. At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue. Which will send the City back to the taxpayers asking for a permanent sales tax to fund core services, i.e police, fire , etc. ( but I really think already happened last fall ) .

Our economy is strong . OKC is a desirable place to live. That's been achieved. We can do more for our economy with a lower sales tax than more govt tax and spend.

Ideally, the projects should promote enough growth in sales tax revenue and other funding sources to pay for their own upkeep.

Not sure about the reality of that though.

At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue.

Do you have any sources/authority backing this statement up?

You need to take into account that our city's growth rate is +10.97% (Census). OKC is very capable of handling the projects we build thru MAPS.

As a safety net; maybe an endowment fund in MAPS 4 (Plutonic Panda mentioned on an earlier post) would put many of you at ease.

Maybe we should just raise the 'sales tax' by a permanent one penny, do away with MAPS--allow the your Mayor, City Manager & City council representatives to determined what should & shouldn't be built. Follow Atlanta, Seattle & Minneapolis' paths; build billion dollar facilities where you don't have a 'say.'

Don't want to derail MAPS because there's one or two projects on there I don't want. Think about it, the beauty of MAPS has been about putting projects on the ballot that have variety appeal.

MAPS wasn't meant to satisfy or dissatisfy a few.

Do you have any sources/authority backing this statement up?

Do you have any sources/authority to disprove that statement ?

You need to take into account that our city's growth rate is +10.97%. OKC is very capable of handling the projects we build thru MAPS.

.

MAPS wasn't meant to satisfy a few.

And along with that growth, you must provide more service ......... more police , more fire, more streets, more costs of development .

We voted to increase the sales tax by 1/2 cent last year. It was supposedly dedicated to police , although it does not guarantee against supplanting of funds.

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

because the city neglected things for so long that it takes more to finally fix it... and they aren't the best with money

because the city neglected things for so long that it takes more to finally fix it... and they aren't the best with money

Well, they said the money was dedicated to hiring more policemen.

Why would that cost more to " finally fix " ?

If we had a great deal of new revenue from the 10.7% growth, then why was it necessary to extend MAPS3 another year, in order to pay for street repair ?

I mean hey, we voted for a tax increase to pay for police and streets, these are basic core services that the City should be paying for out of normal sales tax revenue.

And along with that growth, you must provide more service ......... more police , more fire, more streets, more costs of development .

We voted to increase the sales tax by 1/2 cent last year. It was supposedly dedicated to police , although it does not guarantee against supplanting of funds.

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

Understand your concern:

City didn't dedicate any funds to provide for staffing of Safety (Police & Fire); for a city of our size, we have been operating on the bare bones minimum; therefore a permanent funding source was needed. We funded projects to build new fire stations; it does cost to operate & especially to staff these facilities.

Understand your concern:

City didn't dedicate any funds to provide for staffing of Safety (Police & Fire); for a city of our size, we have been operating on the bare bones minimum; therefore a permanent funding source was needed. We funded projects to build new fire stations; it does cost to operate & especially to staff these facilities.

Well, Laramie, man............the sales tax we voted on in the fall of 2017, was called a Public Safety Sales Tax and it was sold to us as allowing the City to hire a hundred someodd new policemen

https://newsok.com/article/5563872/voters-decide-bond-sales-tax-measures

Now it could be, they were lying to us , or they were being disingenuous , and this was actually just your garden variety sales tax increase, if so, then I feel deceived.

You can't plead poverty on one hand , and then on the other claim there's plenty of money to pay for opex costs of MAPS projects.

You can't butter both sides of your bread.

Well, Laramie, man............the sales tax we voted on in the fall of 2017, was called a Public Safety Sales Tax and it was sold to us as allowing the City to hire a hundred someodd new policemen

https://newsok.com/article/5563872/voters-decide-bond-sales-tax-measures

Now it could be, they were lying to us , or they were being disingenuous , and this was actually just your garden variety sales tax increase, if so, then I feel deceived.

You can't plead poverty on one hand , and then on the other claim there's plenty of money to pay for opex costs of MAPS projects.

You can't butter both sides of your bread.

the police and fire unions are both strong and those services are wanted by the citizens regardless of service level ..... thus that was a political vote ..

Do you have any sources/authority to disprove that statement ?

Though I only took a quick glance, pages 36-39 (of the actual document, not the .pdf) of the following link, for starters: https://www.okc.gov/home/showdocument?id=12840

Though I only took a quick glance, pages 36-39 (of the actual document, not the .pdf) of the following link, for starters: https://www.okc.gov/home/showdocument?id=12840

Ohhh , well, there's the proof ................................ pffffttt

Come on, get real.

the police and fire unions are both strong and those services are wanted by the citizens regardless of service level ..... thus that was a political vote ..

Ohhhh ( slapping my head ) , I should've known that was a " political vote " .

Soooo, the MAPS extension was what kind of vote ?

Hey, it doesn't matter ............. 1/4 cent to police/fire, just supplants an allocation from the Gen Fund. Its just a shuffle game. Its what govt accountants do all day ..... move money from fund to fund.

Fact is, opex on these MAPS projects has been and will be a concern.

But its just one of many reasons to vote NO on any more MAPS.

Ohhh , well, there's the proof ................................ pffffttt

Come on, get real.

Lol. The income statement showing the expenses paid out of the General Fund in the last fiscal year isn't pertinent to how much of the General Fund expenses are attributable to MAPS-related operating expenses (which, even if you're very generous interpreting the line items in favor of your belief, appears to be minimal - perhaps because there's a MAPS Operations fund)? :rolleyes: Unless you're suggesting that the city is cooking the books? Let's see how deep you think the conspiracy really goes.

And along with that growth, you must provide more service ......... more police , more fire, more streets, more costs of development .

We voted to increase the sales tax by 1/2 cent last year. It was supposedly dedicated to police , although it does not guarantee against supplanting of funds.

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

Maps projects being downtown are a way to grow without requiring so much new infrastructure and basic services. We have so many problems because of the geometry of our growth, i.e. sprawl, not growth itself.

Well, Laramie, man............the sales tax we voted on in the fall of 2017, was called a Public Safety Sales Tax and it was sold to us as allowing the City to hire a hundred someodd new policemen

https://newsok.com/article/5563872/voters-decide-bond-sales-tax-measures

Now it could be, they were lying to us , or they were being disingenuous , and this was actually just your garden variety sales tax increase, if so, then I feel deceived.

You can't plead poverty on one hand , and then on the other claim there's plenty of money to pay for opex costs of MAPS projects.

You can't butter both sides of your bread.

There's a difference between capital improvement projects & salaries for safety (police & fire). The 'quality of life' projects will attract new businesses-corporations to our city that generates more taxes; thus increase the need for more police & fire.

Balance those budgets where you don't starve one service over the operations of the other.

Don't get me wrong RedDolllar; we need more balance where you complement the two as you integrate this with your growth.

IIRC we're in the process of hiring more police as the taxes are collected: https://kfor.com/2018/04/18/26-recruits-to-join-oklahoma-city-police-department/

... Our economy is strong . OKC is a desirable place to live. That's been achieved. We can do more for our economy with a lower sales tax than more govt tax and spend.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. OKC is more desirable than it was 15 years ago. However, I believe we are still way behind for a city of our size as to desirability. Investments in programs like MAPS is a chance to push our city further, faster. Equally important, it's the city reflecting on itself that we still have more work to do.

The statement that in the MAPS program "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" is a point of confusion for many who opine about the MAPS program and needs to be clarified prior to any MAPS 4 vote.

You are correct, of course, and you are correct that the Council won't spend money on separate projects because that would effectively kill the MAPS brand.

Looking through the Oklahoman archives, here is what is apparently the 1993 original MAPS ballot.

https://newsok.com/article/3837669/maps-3-the-ballot

It seems the single subject rule was a consideration here.

I'm a nerd. I read OSCN. I pay particular attention to the body of law surrounding the single subject rule because I find that it's something that some very smart people in the legislature can't seem to get figured out, or in other cases, I think they use it to get the Supreme Court to deep six legislation the majority party's base wants by attaching something not germane as a poison pill.

In the cases which come to mind, there are at least two identifiable provisions which are items the voters could have a different opinion on. With the MAPS legislation, it's an additional sales tax to be spent by the Council, and we have bene expected to trust the Council to do what we want.

Here is a good description of the law on this subject:


Our case law provides a "germaneness" test to determine if a statute's provisions are related to a single subject. In re: Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729, 2006 OK 45, ¶ 9, 142 P.3d 400. Under this test, those voting on the law in question must be able to make a choice without being misled, and also must not be forced to make an all or nothing choice between two unrelated provisions contained in one measure. Id. The public is entitled to a clear picture of how their elected officials have voted on a particular issue. Fent v. Fallin, 2013 OK 107

The above is with regard to legislation passed by the legislature, but the same constitutional provisions apply. The MAPS ballot is well drawn to avoid this. While some individuals on the Council didn't go along for the ride, the majority always has. And certainly, if the people want to vote on projects individually, they can reject the "trust us" approach and demand one project at a time.

Perhaps the most viable attack on the ballot language would be that "those voting on the law in question must be able to make a choice without being misled," and it's very clear that while we may be voting thinking about one set of projects, the Council could sell us on a monster truck arena using the Oklahoma River as a moat and instead build housing for the homeless and improve public transit, and be perfectly within their rights to do so.

It's telling that not one person in our legal community, not even the venerable Jerry Fent, who knows this area of the law better than anyone, has taken on MAPS. While it may be a case some of us think we could win, none of us want to win that case.

the police and fire unions are both strong and those services are wanted by the citizens regardless of service level ..... thus that was a political vote ..

I'm not sure that they are as strong as you think. Except for this last tax, in which they were supported by the City in achieving the tax increase for extra public safety expenditures, they strongly supported anyone who rose to challenge Cornett, even when one of those people was Steve Hunt. They were very openly opposed to MAPS III. Their favorite candidates in just about every election did not do well. The power of those unions seems to be oversold.

Ohhhh ( slapping my head ) , I should've known that was a " political vote " .

Soooo, the MAPS extension was what kind of vote ?

Hey, it doesn't matter ............. 1/4 cent to police/fire, just supplants an allocation from the Gen Fund. Its just a shuffle game. Its what govt accountants do all day ..... move money from fund to fund.

Fact is, opex on these MAPS projects has been and will be a concern.

But its just one of many reasons to vote NO on any more MAPS.

I know they've had a few huge police academy classes. I know folks in those classes. Unless we have a ton of retirements happening all at once, it seems there's new money.

I've felt since the beginning of MAPS 3 that the Streetcar was going to be the big test of whether we can trust the council to build according to the non-binding resolution or not, and was privately suspicious right up until they broke ground and started having equipment delivered that it might end up being a bait and switch. I am glad I was more worried than was warranted.

Lol. The income statement showing the expenses paid out of the General Fund in the last fiscal year isn't pertinent to how much of the General Fund expenses are attributable to MAPS-related operating expenses (which, even if you're very generous interpreting the line items in favor of your belief, appears to be minimal - perhaps because there's a MAPS Operations fund)? :rolleyes: Unless you're suggesting that the city is cooking the books? Let's see how deep you think the conspiracy really goes.

I know for a fact, the whitewater kayak project, is losing money. The City covered the operating loss last year and doubled down on it , by putting another 10 million in capital improvements, to help them generate revenue to cover the loss, hopefully.

And you don't know how big a loss streetcar is going to produce.

All due respect, but those financials you linked say nothing.

There's a difference between capital improvement projects & salaries for safety (police & fire). The 'quality of life' projects will attract new businesses-corporations to our city that generates more taxes; thus increase the need for more police & fire.

Balance those budgets where you don't starve one service over the operations of the other.

Don't get me wrong RedDolllar; we need more balance where you complement the two as you integrate this with your growth.

IIRC we're in the process of hiring more police as the taxes are collected: https://kfor.com/2018/04/18/26-recruits-to-join-oklahoma-city-police-department/

I understand the diff in cap imp and opex, all too well. All those cap imp projects will generate opex , that will include personnel and other expenses. And its cumulative.

But you sound like an ad produced by the Chamb of Commerce that I don't buy into it, when these companies decide to relocate, it has a lot of larger factors than " quality of life " . If the whitewater kayaking appeals to the management of a company, then why mess with OKC when they can go to NW Arkansas or Colorado ?

To attract business to OKC, we've done all we need to do. And those companies are more interested in incentives that fatten the bottom line.

And I'm beginning to think that growth is not that great a thing, if it changes the lives of those who are already here, to the worse.

And you don't know how big a loss streetcar is going to produce.



I don't think this is too fair a criticism of the SC.. How much profit do we make off all the roads that cover the 622 sq miles of this city? Oh wait, every one is filled with potholes because we can't afford to fix them. While the streetcar surely will be more expensive to operate than what it'll make in ticket revenue, at least it's a way to try and encourage more density which in turn subsidizes all the very expensive to maintain roads that go to less dense areas.