As far as actual ideas go, how about this?

A combination aquarium/natural history museum. Millions of years ago, part of Oklahoma was covered by a vast inland sea. We once had whales and mega-sharks and other crazy prehistoric monster fish swimming around on this land. If an aquarium is one of the items chosen for MAPS 4, it should have a section devoted to undersea life that used to live here. One section would have current marine life, another could have a big set of Megalodon jaws.

The idea that we'd spend taxpayer money on transporting and imprisoning sea creatures here in the prairie when we have very real future needs like alternative transportation modes, bike infrastructure, etc is pretty baffling to me...

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.

You made a very specific claim regarding a specific part of the city budget ("At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue.") and then stated the city's actual financial statements were not relevant to the conversation. It took 2 seconds of thinking and 2 minutes of research to conclude that claim was demonstrably false and unreasonable.

You are now saying that most MAPS projects are not profitable and/or do not generate positive cash flow. This, I completely agree with. However, as others have stated, they were never intended to generate positive cash flow, but most do not use this as the metric to define MAPS' success. That's of course fine if you do, but that opinion and the original statement are two totally different things.

And with that, I'm out on this thread. Beginning to think Urbanized may have been on to something when taking his leave...

Without the MAPS programs we likely wouldn't have Devon still in the city or probably Continental down from Enid at all. I wouldn't be shocked if their local tax impact alone was enough to pay for the upkeep of all of the MAPS projects that don't individually break even.

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.

This is not true

The idea that we'd spend taxpayer money on transporting and imprisoning sea creatures here in the prairie when we have very real future needs like alternative transportation modes, bike infrastructure, etc is pretty baffling to me...

Quality of life matters.

You made a very specific claim regarding a specific part of the city budget ("At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue.") and then stated the city's actual financial statements were not relevant to the conversation. It took 2 seconds of thinking and 2 minutes of research to conclude that claim was demonstrably false and unreasonable.

You are now saying that most MAPS projects are not profitable and/or do not generate positive cash flow. This, I completely agree with. However, as others have stated, they were never intended to generate positive cash flow, but most do not use this as the metric to define MAPS' success. That's of course fine if you do, but that opinion and the original statement are two totally different things.

And with that, I'm out on this thread. Beginning to think Urbanized may have been on to something when taking his leave...

Good, you went down that rabbit hole , all by yourself. I don't know what part of covering MAPS projucts opex losses from the Gen Fund, that you did not understand.

Quality of life matters.

I kinda think incentives matter. Amazon does too. Even NYC has to compete with incentives.

And there's only so much your gonna do for the quality of life in OKC.

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

Come on, get real.


Stfu you are the one who made a statement. You should back it up when asked. You don’t come back and say “prove me wrong then.” That’s what 12 year olds do.

This is not true

Here, Couch says they hope to not have to provide any more subsidies

https://newsok.com/article/5600261/okc-council-approves-whitewater-park-agreement

This is not true

And here, they put another 8 million in hoping to bring revenues in line with opex , in the lead paragraph

https://newsok.com/article/5612647/okc-council-oks-millions-in-whitewater-park-improvements

You made a very specific claim regarding a specific part of the city budget ("At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue.") and then stated the city's actual financial statements were not relevant to the conversation. It took 2 seconds of thinking and 2 minutes of research to conclude that claim was demonstrably false and unreasonable.

You are now saying that most MAPS projects are not profitable and/or do not generate positive cash flow. This, I completely agree with. However, as others have stated, they were never intended to generate positive cash flow, but most do not use this as the metric to define MAPS' success. That's of course fine if you do, but that opinion and the original statement are two totally different things.

And with that, I'm out on this thread. Beginning to think Urbanized may have been on to something when taking his leave...

And I believe Mr Shadid, just might agree with me, quoting him from one of the links above


Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid opposed the plan.

Shadid said significant MAPS 3 projects, such as the whitewater park, downtown park and streetcar, were approved without a clear idea of how operating expenses would be paid.

"To continue to build capital projects with no plan whatsoever for how you're going to pay for the operations is a mistake," he said. "That money doesn't just come out of thin air, it comes from something else."

Stfu you are the one who made a statement. You should back it up when asked. You don’t come back and say “prove me wrong then.” That’s what 12 year olds do.

Really ? 12 yo's ?

RedDollar, we all know that 'quality of life' projects are not the 'only' factors that lures new businesses-corporations to our city. They can be a determining 'factor' that decides the difference.

MAPS hopefully will have a few projects among many that will appeal to voters; I'm not going to vote against a capital improvement project package because there's one project like streetcar expansion, State Fair Arena replacement or soccer-American football stadium that I don't like.

You're voting on the total package as in MAPS III ($777 million) not individual projects. I know there are people on here who would like to piecemeal MAPS as we did with the 2017 bonds; however you piecemeal it--probably nothing gets passed.

Really ? 12 yo's ?
Yes really. When you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up when asked. Ideally you should back it up anyways without having to be asked. I will admit, I don’t always do that myself, so I am not really the one to talk on that end. But I will back my statements up when asked and not ask people to prove me wrong.

Yes really. When you make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up when asked. Ideally you should back it up anyways without having to be asked. I will admit, I don’t always do that myself, so I am not really the one to talk on that end. But I will back my statements up when asked and not ask people to prove me wrong.

What he was asking was ridiculous.

Like I'm gonna go down to City Hall and tell them I need to audit the books. And financials tell ya nothin, I was not gonna waste my time with the guy.

I put the onus back on him, if he did not like my statement, then he can prove it wrong. As I've done to Boulder guy above, he accused me of lying about losses at the whitewater attraction ................and did nothing to back it up, and I did not get my panties in a wad. I just proved him wrong.

What he was asking was ridiculous.

Like I'm gonna go down to City Hall and tell them I need to audit the books. And financials tell ya nothin, I was not gonna waste my time with the guy.

I put the onus back on him, if he did not like my statement, then he can prove it wrong. As I've done to Boulder guy above, he accused me of lying about losses at the whitewater attraction ................and did nothing to back it up, and I did not get my panties in a wad. I just proved him wrong.
Well, not that I disagree with you, but I am playing devils advocate here.

At any rate, I have read some articles about a possible endowment being included on Maps 4 to fund MAPS projects. I am unsure if that will only be for MAPS 4 projects or all previous MAPS projects as well. I agree that maintenance and upkeep of MAPS projects should be addressed and considered.

RedDollar, we all know that 'quality of life' projects are not the 'only' factors that lures new businesses-corporations to our city. They can be a determining 'factor' that decides the difference.

MAPS hopefully will have a few projects among many that will appeal to voters; I'm not going to vote against a capital improvement project package because there's one project like streetcar expansion, State Fair Arena replacement or soccer-American football stadium that I don't like.

You're voting on the total package as in MAPS III ($777 million) not individual projects. I know there are people on here who would like to piecemeal MAPS as we did with the 2017 bonds; however you piecemeal it--probably nothing gets passed.

I am opposite of you. We have passed the “bundle” phase. We needed a lot as a city (back in MAPS 1/2) but now we are are being force fed pet projects that don’t add value to enough of the city and will add mega reoccuring upkeep costs. I think all future projects should be voted alone and stand on their own merits. I am positive if MAPS 4 is bundled it will fail big time. And that loses momentum vs if you list each project seperate. You will get some passed that way (seperate) and will have better support.

Adding all these pet projects as one is going to divide the citizens in to segments where nothing gets passed. It seems they are trying to trick citizens into voting yes for projects they don’t want. The people have wised up and that sneaky tactic won’t work in future. SC is a bust as far as most citizens feel and no one wants to spend even more on it. I hope the city gets out away from downtown and talks to some of the 80% rest of city about how they feel. Its like 20% are trying to tax the life out of our city for pet downtown projects. Downtown is flourishing so we need to stop putting so much tax money there. Selective projects can pass but not all, and they need broken up.

What he was asking was ridiculous.

Like I'm gonna go down to City Hall and tell them I need to audit the books. And financials tell ya nothin, I was not gonna waste my time with the guy.

I put the onus back on him, if he did not like my statement, then he can prove it wrong. As I've done to Boulder guy above, he accused me of lying about losses at the whitewater attraction ................and did nothing to back it up, and I did not get my panties in a wad. I just proved him wrong.

Ah - I apologize! I misunderstood. So you are alleging that what would have to include multiple officials working for the City of Oklahoma City and its auditor are engaged in a massive conspiracy to falsify the City's books and records by hiding MAPS operating expenses in unrelated General Fund line items, likely committing a host of crimes in the process. And low and behold, these allegations are based on zero evidence (as you even admit to in the quoted post). My bad! I had not realized we had waded into trollish, Reddit-worthy conspiracy theories.

I suppose it does make sense. You intimated you were highly competent in matters of finance and accounting; thus it seemed odd to me you weren't aware of a magic document available to anyone that shows the revenue and expenses attributable to the City's General Fund - which, had you been making a reasonable argument and if you had ever reviewed a financial statement in your life, you could have used to easily prove your point using the information I provided. The fact that you say financial statements don't provide any information tells me all I need to know about the level of your expertise.

Since you said most of the General Fund was being used to pay for MAPS OpEx, I merely asked you to point out where on the General Fund revenue and expense statement those expenses resided. And I even took the 10 seconds out of my day to look myself and provide you a link! But I'm sooo sorry - I didn't realize we were making baseless allegations of fraud, falsifying financial records, and probably a host of other crimes if your allegations happened to be correct (though I'm admittedly not 100% up to speed on financial crimes committed by municipalities).

If Ed Shadid or someone else can provide actual evidence that the city is cooking the books and hiding MAPS expenses in unrelated General Fund line items, I'm all ears and will protest with everyone else, but I make no (sincere) apologies for calling your conspiracy theory out for what it is.

I am opposite of you. We have passed the “bundle” phase. We needed a lot as a city (back in MAPS 1/2) but now we are are being force fed pet projects that don’t add value to enough of the city and will add mega reoccuring upkeep costs. I think all future projects should be voted alone and stand on their own merits. I am positive if MAPS 4 is bundled it will fail big time. And that loses momentum vs if you list each project seperate. You will get some passed that way (seperate) and will have better support.

Adding all these pet projects as one is going to divide the citizens in to segments where nothing gets passed. It seems they are trying to trick citizens into voting yes for projects they don’t want. The people have wised up and that sneaky tactic won’t work in future. SC is a bust as far as most citizens feel and no one wants to spend even more on it. I hope the city gets out away from downtown and talks to some of the 80% rest of city about how they feel. Its like 20% are trying to tax the life out of our city for pet downtown projects. Downtown is flourishing so we need to stop putting so much tax money there. Selective projects can pass but not all, and they need broken up.

I'm not opposite to you; we all have opinions where we agree or disagree. Many posters have concerns, so don't take anything personal--that's not IMO many posters intentions.

MAPS is a continuation/extension of the previous initiative; as far as 'taxing the life' out of our city for pet projects downtown--you need to revisit the previous MAPS initiatives. Just because a project doesn't benefit you, doesn't mean it doesn't benefit others.

MAPS has been successful as an initiative with a variety of projects; so far we've passed all previous ones.

I didn't care for a new convention center; after visiting other cities, re-evaluated OKC's need for a convention center capable of competing with other cities. Tulsa renovated their convention center; now they seem to have second-thoughts that OKC might be more competitive than they initially thought.

I'm not opposite to you; we all have opinions where we agree or disagree. Many posters have concerns, so don't take anything personal--that's not IMO many posters intentions.

MAPS is a continuation/extension of the previous initiative; as far as 'taxing the life' out of our city for pet projects downtown--you need to revisit the previous MAPS initiatives. Just because a project doesn't benefit you, doesn't mean it doesn't benefit others.

MAPS has been successful as an initiative with a variety of projects; so far we've passed all previous ones.

I didn't care for a new convention center; after visiting other cities, re-evaluated OKC's need for a convention center capable of competing with other cities. Tulsa renovated their convention center; now they seem to have second-thoughts that OKC might be more competitive than they initially thought.

We are just going to agree and disagree on some items. I liked earlier MAPS but now we are trying to find things to spend money on. Everything in MAPS 1 was a huge hit but last MAPS not so much. I liked the convention center and park but not the SC. I voted yes because I hadn’t researched it much at the time it was so so long ago. Since then I have and to me its a huge failure. Its the first and only project I have become against, so its not like I’m anti MAPS. I feel we are past the bundle days and need to be more selective in projects.

Keep on mind most of our projects are still new or semi new and have not needed major upgrades (other than Peake). At a point soon enough that bill will come due. If we add a bunch more new projects by the time they get built our reoccuring upkeep expenses are going to be hitting us hard. Not to mention the regional transit pipedream which is going to cost more megabucks and take decades to build out. And through it all we still have crumbling roads all over the metro and poor bus service.

I like our city and don’t want to copy others. We are going to tax ourselves to death with all these projects and need to regroup and catch our breath on core items. Another comment we are in the longest economic expansion in our lifetimes and at a point sooner than later the economy will take a break. That will hurt us all. And the hotels and convention center qnd other iprojects opened will see less people come. So oir city collection taxes go down from less money in economic spending. We are growing and expanding like there is worry of any downturn.

My main point is we need to go forward smartly and with more caution. We can still grow and do projects but have to be more selective and stop bundles.

Good post OKC Guy.

Maps 4 should be a 3 year sales tax to create an endowment fund to fund expenses and improvements to city infrastructure. Not just the maps projects but all buildings and other infrastructure. This should generate more than enough return on investment to cover all operating expenses of maps projects. This would also follow the single item ballot law. This would allow the city to use more general fund revenue to build and/or repair sidewalks, streets, beautification, public safety, or even add more funds to the endowment without having to continuously go to voters for smaller projects. This would also give residents 3 years to see how all the maps 3 projects are doing as far as meeting expectations.

In summary it gives the citizens a break from continuous maps projects, keeps the penny tax place while providing a permanent funding source for maintaining and operating all the maps projects to date plus some extra cash to either reinvest into the city now or to add to the endowment proving ever more returns in the future.

Great ideas 1975ford with one exception; don't think you can use capital improvements money on operating expenses.

Three years would generate around $300 million based on the most recent collections.


MAPS magic

The MAPS 3 tax will be replaced by two new sales tax initiatives, both approved by Oklahoma City voters in September. Under the Better Streets, Safer City plan, the 1-cent MAPS tax is extended for 27 months to benefit street infrastructure. A quarter-cent permanent sales tax will also be collected; however, it will be deposited in the city operations fund to benefit public safety positions. City officials estimate the temporary sales tax will generate $240 million and the permanent tax adds $26 million annually into the city’s budget.


MAPS 3 tax is anticipated to sunset with a $28.5 million surplus: https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/maps-3-tax-is-anticipated-to-sunset-with-a-285-million-surplus/Content?oid=2993217
By Laura Eastes - Gazette

And here, they put another 8 million in hoping to bring revenues in line with opex , in the lead paragraph

https://newsok.com/article/5612647/okc-council-oks-millions-in-whitewater-park-improvements


the operations of the entire complex needed a 2 mil dolllar boost ... for 2 reasons costes associated with the startup of running the white water course and because of not great financial mgmt of the foundation ...


the city required a bunch of changes to the foundation and now going forward it will operate in the black

that 8 mil was projects with MAPS3 funds ..... IE wish list items that MAPS3 money had to be spend on MAPS 3 projects ...

I don't think we are anywhere close to being competitive with peer cities. OKC has a ton of improvement to make, and MAPS is the best brand we have to make that happen.

I don't think we are anywhere close to being competitive with peer cities. OKC has a ton of improvement to make, and MAPS is the best brand we have to make that happen.

No doubt about that. But what do we spend it on to get the most bang for the buck?

I don't think we are anywhere close to being competitive with peer cities. OKC has a ton of improvement to make, and MAPS is the best brand we have to make that happen.

absolutely

the operations of the entire complex needed a 2 mil dolllar boost ... for 2 reasons costes associated with the startup of running the white water course and because of not great financial mgmt of the foundation ...


the city required a bunch of changes to the foundation and now going forward it will operate in the black

that 8 mil was projects with MAPS3 funds ..... IE wish list items that MAPS3 money had to be spend on MAPS 3 projects ...


Go ahead and sugar coat that deal , all you wish. But that thing is a loser. If this type of attraction could be operated at a profit, the private sector would be doing these projects.

And that applies to all the MAPS projects.

Whitewater = White Elephant ......... that the taxpayers will be paying for , for forever. People who never get near the dam thing will be paying more for groceries for something a small number of citizens use.

Enough of this silliness. This pie in the sky dreaming. This is not monopoly money. Its real money confiscated from citizens and the people who feel these taxes, are middle and lower income.

I don't think we are anywhere close to being competitive with peer cities. OKC has a ton of improvement to make, and MAPS is the best brand we have to make that happen.

So you want higher taxes on working people, so you can win a pissing contest with other cities.

Man ................

So you want higher taxes on working people, so you can win a pissing contest with other cities.

Man ................

no we want okc to continue to improve and be a great place to live ....

and we like that a giant portion of the OKC Maps tax is paid for by people that do not live in OKC

So you want higher taxes on working people, so you can win a pissing contest with other cities.

Man ................

In life you get what you pay for......... so you want nothing ?

I don't live in OKC so I don't get a vote, yet I spend most of my sales tax dollars in OKC. Ya know what though? I don't begrudge the city the extra $5 a month they get from me. Yeah, I expect some good stewardship of these projects, and there are certainly some areas of concern, but overall, I'm pretty happy with MAPS, as someone who doesn't live in downtown, nor gets any input/vote, yet spends the tax dollars. OKC's sales tax rate is comparable with Edmond, and lower than Norman, Yukon, Midwest city, and such metro communities, so I don't think the working people are being oppressed that much.

All of this being said, one question I have that came up because of the Aquarium talk. Aquariums are good tourist draws, and I like the idea (although not sure because of the Oklahoma Aquarium in Jenks). It seems to me like something along this line screams "partnership". Is there the possibility for MAPS projects that are funded only partially or mostly through city sales taxes, with additional support coming in from the State or from Educational Institutions? Or even Federal grants and support?

I don't live in OKC so I don't get a vote, yet I spend most of my sales tax dollars in OKC. Ya know what though? I don't begrudge the city the extra $5 a month they get from me. Yeah, I expect some good stewardship of these projects, and there are certainly some areas of concern, but overall, I'm pretty happy with MAPS, as someone who doesn't live in downtown, nor gets any input/vote, yet spends the tax dollars. OKC's sales tax rate is comparable with Edmond, and lower than Norman, Yukon, Midwest city, and such metro communities, so I don't think the working people are being oppressed that much.

All of this being said, one question I have that came up because of the Aquarium talk. Aquariums are good tourist draws, and I like the idea (although not sure because of the Oklahoma Aquarium in Jenks). It seems to me like something along this line screams "partnership". Is there the possibility for MAPS projects that are funded only partially or mostly through city sales taxes, with additional support coming in from the State or from Educational Institutions? Or even Federal grants and support?

the aquarium would be maps dollars plus some priviate dollars then would be run by the zoo and they project it would generate revenue to fund full operations as long as it is located near downtown which is the plan

No doubt about that. But what do we spend it on to get the most bang for the buck?

I'm a nerd. I like museums. I'm going to keep suggesting we get some type of natural history museum in OKC, even though it doesn't appear to motivate other people. :)

If I had to come up with a list, I'd say...

--X number of miles of new sidewalks, bike lanes, and walking trails. The city needs better connections.
--money to renovate various parks around the city, and an endowment to keep them nice. This lets you put something in each area of the city.
--the aquarium/natural history museum combo. You can look at fish and I can look at fossils.
--stage one of streetcar expansion. One line up to OCU, one down to Capitol Hill, and one to the HSC. We need to start hitting neighborhoods where people live.
--a canal extension into the old co-op site, if the owners of the land produce a real workable plan for development that doesn't require massive public funds.
--a bare-bones 20,000 seat soccer stadium that can be expanded as needed. If MLS starts looking like a possibility we can always look at that later.
--we'll say five community mental health/treatment centers around the city, partnered with HOPE or some other organization to provide better access to care.
--money to purchase "architecturally significant" properties around the city and turn them into a community center or library branch, or something like that. Save the gold dome, the egg church, things like that.

That's what my list would look like.


So you want higher taxes on working people, so you can win a pissing contest with other cities.

Man ................

I want to invest in our city. I want our city to be successful. And I believe in public spending, particularly on the local level. It's okay to want nice things for your city.

X number of miles of new sidewalks, bike lanes, and walking trails. The city needs better connections.

. . . Oklahoma City in midst of largest street repair initiative in history: https://kfor.com/2018/10/19/oklahoma-city-in-midst-of-largest-street-repair-initiative-in-history/

Money to renovate various parks around the city, and an endowment to keep them nice. This lets you put something in each area of the city.

The aquarium/natural history museum combo. You can look at fish and I can look at fossils.

Stage one of streetcar expansion. One line up to OCU, one down to Capitol Hill, and one to the HSC. We need to start hitting neighborhoods where people live.

A canal extension into the old co-op site, if the owners of the land produce a real workable plan for development that doesn't require massive public funds.

A bare-bones 20,000 seat soccer stadium that can be expanded as needed. If MLS starts looking like a possibility we can always look at that later.

We'll say five community mental health/treatment centers around the city, partnered with HOPE or some other organization to provide better access to care.

Money to purchase "architecturally significant" properties around the city and turn them into a community center or library branch, or something like that. Save the gold dome, the egg church, things like that.


You nailed it, hoya.

There are many ways you can improve OKC; there are many projects that could help improve our city including an 'endowment fund' say $200 million for upkeep of previous MAPS projects and funds to purchase historic architecturally significant properties.

Would like to add one more unpopular project to that list. A new State Fair Arena replacement. I know many posters are turned off to the fact that the State Fair Board Trust hasn't opened it books to the public. It's obvious that the SFB Trust doesn't have anything IMO worth examining. The current trade shows & events at State Fair Park has an estimated economic impact of $300 million according to Populous.

The new 5,500 seat minimum seating capacity arena could satisfy the needs of our current trade shows & events to keep them in OKC.

What about an update to the Omniplex? I haven't been there in a very long time, but from what I remember it wasn't very good.

The Science Museum has been doing great these past 5 years, they’ve really turned the place around. The IMAX needs to do something though.

What about an update to the Omniplex? I haven't been there in a very long time, but from what I remember it wasn't very good.

You should grab a couple of kids (preferably family) and go back. They have really improved the place lately. Only negative is the imax is closed.

Possible funding towards a planetarium:

https://journalrecord.com/2019/04/29/maps-4-eyed-for-planetarium-funding/

I hate the idea of having endowments for this function and endowments for that function, you couple that with dedicated taxes and its taking financial decision making away from elected officials, the City Council.

This is not a good way to fund operations. When a tax is dedicated to a certain function, what can happen is either that function becomes over funded, which leads to waste, and other functions can starve for money.

We are seeing the results of earmarking revenue at the State level, especially with how property taxes fund our schools or how the Gross Production tax is divvied up, it mostly takes place outside of the purview of the state legislature and has now reached a point where elected officials only appropriate 40% of the state budget.

We elect City Council to make these decisions. We can't manage the City's money by all of us getting on our computers at 9 pm every evening and making these decisions, which is what we do when we vote for these decicated taxes or " endowments " . That idea is not good. Its very short sighted.

I did not like in 1990, when we voted the sales tax dedicated to polic/fire and the zoo. The only reason that was done, is because the voters had turned down two previous attempts at raising the sales tax. The feedback from voters was, that if the City told them HOW the money would be spent, they might vote for it.

And these dedicated taxes just open the door for supplanting. All the Council has to do , is reduce the General Fund allocation to a function , by the amount of the dedicated tax, and then no one really knows where the money is spent.

Its not a good way to fund any level of government. If your elected officials are not spending money the way you think it should be allocated, then get new representatives. Don't try to micro manage the budget through the ballot box, it will just end up in more waste and inefficiency.

Hello again everybody. I've been popping in from time to time to see what people think about MAPS 4. This forum is a great resource for me, as a college student hoping to study regional and city planning as a graduate student, and be a part of the Oklahoma City community after graduation.

I know there has been a lot of banter regarding ideologies regarding MAPS in its current state, its necessity, etc. I want to turn back to ideas and, in a way, fan those argumentative flames a bit, and ask the forum what the general perception would be if a "Space Needle" observation tower were in MAPS 4 as a tool for economic development, tourism, and "culture", as a blanket term.

Hello again everybody. I've been popping in from time to time to see what people think about MAPS 4. This forum is a great resource for me, as a college student hoping to study regional and city planning as a graduate student, and be a part of the Oklahoma City community after graduation.

I know there has been a lot of banter regarding ideologies regarding MAPS in its current state, its necessity, etc. I want to turn back to ideas and, in a way, fan those argumentative flames a bit, and ask the forum what the general perception would be if a "Space Needle" observation tower were in MAPS 4 as a tool for economic development, tourism, and "culture", as a blanket term.

for me, it depends where, and how it fits in to the surrounding area... could be in favor of it... i'm in favor of most of the ideas if they were implemented in the correct place in the correct way.

an easy example to point to is a highway cap... i don't understand the need for one on 235... but one across I-40 that adds to the park, i would be totally for

for me, it depends where, and how it fits in to the surrounding area... could be in favor of it... i'm in favor of most of the ideas if they were implemented in the correct place in the correct way.

an easy example to point to is a highway cap... i don't understand the need for one on 235... but one across I-40 that adds to the park, i would be totally for


for me, it depends where, and how it fits in to the surrounding area... could be in favor of it... i'm in favor of most of the ideas if they were implemented in the correct place in the correct way.

an easy example to point to is a highway cap... i don't understand the need for one on 235... but one across I-40 that adds to the park, i would be totally for

I believe I would as well prefer a highway cap over 40 vs. 235. The north and south parks seem very detached by current renderings (and the south park just seems a bit patchy/weak) and a cap could help.

I have been fever-dreaming acquisition and use of the cotton mill acreages east of the convention center as an area for this, alongside an expansion of the riverwalk. However, it seems like the Funk plan of the same area is quite popular, so I'm scrounging alternate sites.

I would be personally fond of using one of the two quite open tracts along S Western Ave and 40 Crosstown. The north section would need to be rezoned in full, the south in part. However, those areas of land aren't great in terms of downtown access, nearby shopping, etc.

Gazette just published a story about a poll commissioned by Ed Shadid to get feedback on the projects most likely to be included in MAPS 4.

The chamber of commerce does something similar but those results are never made public.

The soccer stadium polled very low and we'll see if that affects its inclusion on the list of projects that are ultimately selected.


Really interesting read, good quotes from the major, more about the survey and the full results are attached:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/polling-projects/Content?oid=6183528


According to SoonerPoll, which polled residents on nine different projects as well as other MAPS-related questions, a soccer stadium has the least support, while facilities for mental health and substance abuse have the most.

Gazette just published a story about a poll commissioned by Ed Shadid to get feedback on the projects most likely to be included in MAPS 4.

The chamber of commerce does something similar but those results are never made public.

The soccer stadium polled very low and we'll see if that affects its inclusion on the list of projects that are ultimately selected.


Really interesting read, good quotes from the major, more about the survey and the full results are attached:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/polling-projects/Content?oid=6183528

pretty interesting stuff ..

but some pretty leading questions ... and the target group doesn't really reflect those that vote in these type of elections

pretty interesting stuff ..

but some pretty leading questions ... and the target group doesn't really reflect those that vote in these type of elections

Here was the sample: "The study’s demographics are 58 percent Republican registered, 39 percent ideologically moderate, 54 percent 65 years or older and 72 percent white."

How does this differ from those who typically vote in special elections?

Gazette just published a story about a poll commissioned by Ed Shadid to get feedback on the projects most likely to be included in MAPS 4.

The chamber of commerce does something similar but those results are never made public.

The soccer stadium polled very low and we'll see if that affects its inclusion on the list of projects that are ultimately selected.


Really interesting read, good quotes from the major, more about the survey and the full results are attached:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/polling-projects/Content?oid=6183528

Also noticed Streetcar, more are opposed than for it. The data in Gazette shows it second least popular.

I wish they would not bundle projects anymore. List each independently and let it pass or fail. By bundling it risks all projects failing.

From that article:

Poll results
Mental health and substance abuse facilities: About 13 percent oppose the project and 83 support it.

Investment in our city parks, such as restroom facilities, athletic complexes and equipment for children and adults: About 17 percent oppose the project and 78 percent support it.

Protected bike lane infrastructure to help decrease our nation-leading fatality and injury rate among bicyclists: About 23 percent oppose the project and 74 support it.

Improvements to the bus system, including new buses and bus shelters: About 21 percent oppose the project and 71 percent support it.

A fund to help bridge the gap in financing historic preservation projects: About 25 percent oppose the project and 62 percent support it.

Electric buses that cost more to buy upfront but save money on operations and maintenance and last longer than diesel buses: About 29 percent oppose the project and 59 support it.

Replacement of the State Fairgrounds Arena costing between $100 and $120 million: About 39 percent oppose the project and 54 percent support it.

An expansion of the downtown streetcar to include additional routes: About 53 percent oppose the project and 41 percent support it.

Soccer stadium in the downtown area costing between $70 and $90 million: About 67 percent oppose the project and 26 percent support it.

No aquarium?

No aquarium?

I believe the aquarium is off the list, for all intents and purposes.

I believe the aquarium is off the list, for all intents and purposes.

this is intersting i have heard very recently that it is still very much in the plans ... i wonder why that changed

I'm curious if there's been recent or planned development for the empty plot on Harvey Parkway and SW 14th just north of the river. Core to Shore plan says "mixed-use development". Is that in stone or just a guiding hand? Thanks all.

I'm curious if there's been recent or planned development for the empty plot on Harvey Parkway and SW 14th just north of the river. Core to Shore plan says "mixed-use development". Is that in stone or just a guiding hand? Thanks all.

That's all just conceptual at this point.

Mental health and substance abuse facilities are nice and everything, but the most important part of treatment are the counselors and psychologist who staff them which is an ongoing cost.

I believe the aquarium is off the list, for all intents and purposes.

If this is the case and they try to include an arena for the state fair or a soccer stadium I will vote no 100%. The more that I hear about this MAPS the less inclined I am to vote for it, and that seems to be a pretty common sentiment among other people in OKC as well. The lineup they are polling is an absolute loser and is counter to the original idea behind MAPS. The soccer stadium is subsidizing a millionaire and the state fair arena is a literal **** sandwich that the citizens of Oklahoma city are getting force fed like a mental patient.

is a literal **** sandwich

i actually don't think it is....

It seems the chamber is focused on the following projects:

1. State Fair Arena
2. Soccer Stadium
3. Thunder Practice / Auxilary Facility (not exactly sure what this would entail but would be near the practice facility)
4. Chesapeake Arena Improvements (primarily for the Thunder)
5. Boathouse Row Recreation


Ideas that seem to have been ditched:
- Aquarium
- Streetcar expansion
- I-235 cap

It seems the chamber is focused on the following projects:

1. State Fair Arena
2. Soccer Stadium
3. Thunder Practice / Auxilary Facility (not exactly sure what this would entail but would be near the practice facility)
4. Chesapeake Arena Improvements (primarily for the Thunder)
5. Boathouse Row Recreation


Ideas that seem to have been ditched:
- Aquarium
- Streetcar expansion
- I-235 cap

no streetcar expansion, no yes vote from me.

no streetcar expansion, no yes vote from me.
Same here.