Oklahoma City is in a major transition period. We are competitive with other cities; MAPS has worked. Projects like the coliseum & stadium will generate enough income to pay for operating expenses as we've seen with Chesapeake Arena, Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark and other MAPS projects open to the public including the Streetcar.



New projects at State Fair Park will increase our sales tax base with new money spent in our community which has a tremendous economic impact on growth--same is projected for our convention center complex under construction. Participate in the input process MAPS 4 has made available.

We are the 27th most populated city in the country; 5,000 more estimated residents than Las Vegas, they had 5,000 more residents than OKC in the 2010 census


27 Oklahoma City . . . 2019 - 649,021 2010 - 579,999 +11.90% Growth rate.
28 Las Vegas . . . . . . . 2019 - 644,644 2010 - 583,756 +10.43% Growth rate.

Our growth over the past 29 years (1990-2019) has been attributed to MAPS; it elevated OKC to a competitive level--now is not the time to put on the breaks.

Good info.

To clarify my position. I am for MAPS and of all prior projects have been for them except 1.

My take is the current method of doing MAPS is not good due to it lasting so many years. The first 3 were needed to be massive due to “catching up”. Now that we are at least in the hunt I want us to change MAPS into 2-3 years at a time vice 8-10 years.

Our city has changed and now we are at the point where we have to do things smartly. Look at how much has changed in last 10 years. By doing another 8-10 year MAPS means no changes to it can happen for a decade. Thats too long, and I think if left as is (8-10 year plan) it will fail at the voting box.

What I propose is to do them in shorter stretches of 2-3 years. People are more picky now and long term MAPS will fail. The shorter term MAPS can be more focused and the good thing is if your project isn’t listed its only a few years until the next one. Once we pass a 2-3 year MAPS planning work can start on the next one. This keeps it active in voters minds and most importantly allows us as a city to adjust quicker to changing needs. 10 year MAPS allow nothing to be adjusted forever it seems. Do them at $200-$300m per cycle. It also gives voters hope that if their wanted project isn’t on current one it might be on the next one in a few years. Putting too much into one bill means higher risk of no votes if either your project isn’t listed or a project you are against is.

What I’m afraid will happen is the 10 year MAPS will fail and thus we will have lost all momentum of last 30 years. Smaller ones, if they fail we would have another readjusted one shortly after - once we learn why it failed and adjust. And we can adjust to growing needs much faster.

So in closing, do short 2-3 year long MAPS and you stand a better change of passing and adapting to changing needs faster.

Good info.

To clarify my position. I am for MAPS and of all prior projects have been for them except 1.

My take is the current method of doing MAPS is not good due to it lasting so many years. The first 3 were needed to be massive due to “catching up”. Now that we are at least in the hunt I want us to change MAPS into 2-3 years at a time vice 8-10 years.

Our city has changed and now we are at the point where we have to do things smartly. Look at how much has changed in last 10 years. By doing another 8-10 year MAPS means no changes to it can happen for a decade. Thats too long, and I think if left as is (8-10 year plan) it will fail at the voting box.

What I propose is to do them in shorter stretches of 2-3 years. People are more picky now and long term MAPS will fail. The shorter term MAPS can be more focused and the good thing is if your project isn’t listed its only a few years until the next one. Once we pass a 2-3 year MAPS planning work can start on the next one. This keeps it active in voters minds and most importantly allows us as a city to adjust quicker to changing needs. 10 year MAPS allow nothing to be adjusted forever it seems. Do them at $200-$300m per cycle. It also gives voters hope that if their wanted project isn’t on current one it might be on the next one in a few years. Putting too much into one bill means higher risk of no votes if either your project isn’t listed or a project you are against is.

What I’m afraid will happen is the 10 year MAPS will fail and thus we will have lost all momentum of last 30 years. Smaller ones, if they fail we would have another readjusted one shortly after - once we learn why it failed and adjust. And we can adjust to growing needs much faster.

So in closing, do short 2-3 year long MAPS and you stand a better change of passing and adapting to changing needs faster.

Actually I think this is not a bad idea. Particularly right now, when I think we don't have any real game changers proposed for MAPS 4. A series of "Micro MAPS" projects, each one lasting 1 to 2 years, could be implemented more quickly and make us more responsive.

if this maps fails (and i worry it might) it will be because the powers that be strayed from what has alwasy made maps work

I'm starting to believe they may jettison the soccer stadium in order to try and salvage the election, as it's wildly unpopular.

The truth may simply be that MAPS has run its course. There are no new, blockbuster ideas or big projects that are really needed. And even something like the State Fair Arena could be funded in a different, and perhaps more appropriate way.


MAPS was always meant to jump-start and get things rolling in the right direction; hence the 'temporary' tagline. It has more than accomplished that and it may be time to let it go and start looking at different ways to service the on-going needs that seem to operational rather than capital, like transportation and mental health.

Put me down as a solid "Yes" on the idea of a new animal shelter. I think that would have broad public appeal as well and fits the MAPS mold pretty well.

Put me down as a solid "Yes" on the idea of a new animal shelter. I think that would have broad public appeal as well and fits the MAPS mold pretty well.

Could be very easily funded through GO Bonds.

Could be very easily funded through GO Bonds.

Or MAPS.

i’m beginning to get the impression that you may not be a fan of the streetcar.


lolz!

Or MAPS.

We don't need to tax people $1B for a new animal shelter.

Aren't they asking for $40 million out of $800?

The truth may simply be that MAPS has run its course. There are no new, blockbuster ideas or big projects that are really needed.

I have always had an uneasy feeling about MAPS. On the one hand, it sparked growth. On the other, using a regressive sales tax to fund projects that primarily appeal to the middle/upper class is very problematic. Having said that, there are still transformative projects that could change OKC in ways that likely wouldn't happen otherwise. My two favorite ideas are a MAPS focused on (a) social work issues like homelessness, addiction, and related issues or (b) MAPS for transportation that dedicates money to sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and streetcar expansion. If you think big, MAPS could result in huge changes in either or both areas. For example, what if with option A OKC built housing for homeless as done in Salt Lake City or helped to support wrap-around services at OKC schools to help address many of the physical and mental health challenges students face. I don't know. I'm just throwing out ideas for theme-oriented MAPS. Of course, you could have a hodgepodge MAPS, but it is worth asking whether those types of changes will be transformative.

If we really wanted to do something transformational, allocate all $1B to protected bike lanes and related bike infrastructure.

That is the only way we will ever be able to make a dent in an otherwise overwhelming problem.

It would also be the best economic development tool ever, as it would instantly bring attention to younger, more energetic people (the creative class) and help keep the same here. It would also be a great asset to people in lower income brackets who would instantly have a viable and inexpensive way to get around this sprawling, car-centric town.

And help deal with massive obesity and general poor health issues that plague this city and state.


But, alas, they are talking about throwing $50M at bike lanes, paths and sidewalks, not enough to do much of anything.

If we really wanted to do something transformational, allocate all $1B to protected bike lanes and related bike infrastructure.

That is the only way we will ever be able to make a dent in an otherwise overwhelming problem.

It would also be the best economic development tool ever, as it would instantly bring attention to younger, more energetic people (the creative class) and help keep the same here. It would also be a great asset to people in lower income brackets who would instantly have a viable and inexpensive way to get around this sprawling, car-centric town.

And help deal with massive obesity and general poor health issues that plague this city and state.


But, alas, they are talking about throwing $50M at bike lanes, paths and sidewalks, not enough to do much of anything.

agreed... why i think a full maps just for sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and public transit would be amazing... but i also know will never happen

If we really wanted to do something transformational, allocate all $1B to protected bike lanes and related bike infrastructure.

That is the only way we will ever be able to make a dent in an otherwise overwhelming problem.

It would also be the best economic development tool ever, as it would instantly bring attention to younger, more energetic people (the creative class) and help keep the same here. It would also be a great asset to people in lower income brackets who would instantly have a viable and inexpensive way to get around this sprawling, car-centric town.

And help deal with massive obesity and general poor health issues that plague this city and state.


But, alas, they are talking about throwing $50M at bike lanes, paths and sidewalks, not enough to do much of anything.

Here here! (hear hear??) To me this is one of the best things we can do to improve quality of life for all people. It's not an intuitive idea for most people though.

I say this all the time, but bike infrastructure isn't just for the Dutch and hipsters on trendy fixed-gear bikes.

It's a legit means of transportation and recreation for everyone.

I live near some lower income housing and many times I see people coming home in the dark of night on their bikes, after a long day of work. Incredibly dangerous, but what choice do they have?

Also, I was a very avid cyclist in California and my two expensive bikes have gathered a thick layer of dust since moving to OKC. I went out a few times and other than the dedicated bike paths -- which you have to drive to -- I feel very, very unsafe elsewhere.

MAPS needs to be rebranded/scaled down. The things the city needs will require continuous funding which can't be accomplished through one time cash infusions. MAPS 3 was used to get a couple of unpopular, but perhaps needed items passed, but that doesn't work anymore when their are not really any a high profile items on the ticket.

Agree we could do more for the bikes, (no offense) especially if it gets these unhealthy folks off the couch away from those deadly workouts at the dinner table.

My only problem with the short term MAPS is getting the voters to buy in on what the council presents before the voters. Also true, the coliseum could be funded thru bonds based on its tremendous use.

A longer term MAPS 4 could have a $50 million (5%) fund built into the initiative to provide for 'unforeseen capital improvements projects or expenses.' The fund would be exclusive of the contingency fund.

United Soccer League have put franchises on notice as early as 2015: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/05/13/usl-league-announces-intention-house-all-24-teams-soccer-specific-stadiums-2020 It's not like we didn't see this coming.


“A critical part of our strategic growth plan is to have all USL clubs as owners or primary tenants of soccer-specific stadiums by 2020,”

Time is running out: we will lose USL AAA soccer without a soccer specific stadium, the franchise ownership could be forced to forfeit the franchise where it would be sold and relocated to another city.

Time is running out: we will lose USL AAA soccer without a soccer specific stadium, the franchise ownership could be forced to forfeit the franchise where it would be sold and relocated to another city.

That's a good point. Too bad the Producer's Coop deal fell through; I want to see something like this, but not funded by MAPS, or at least not this iteration of MAPS.

Let them try in 2027 with the next GO bond cycle, or pay for construction on their own. I'd like to see MAPS 4 alter its focus a bit.

I would 100% support a MAPS bike lanes. Can you imagine how that would re-make OKC? I honestly think it would transform OKC's image in tremendous ways in addition to the health, economic (e.g., cyclists/pedestrians frequent local places more than chains), and sustainability (e.g., cities need to consider remaking infrastructure as the climate change crisis may require it sooner than many expect).

agreed... why i think a full maps just for sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and public transit would be amazing... but i also know will never happen

The special interests folks would never go for that. They wouldn't be able to line their pockets with projects aimed at helping the common folk.

Let's be completely real here: how many really think a MAPS for bike lanes would pass. While I wouldn't be against it, it seems DOA.

Let's be completely real here: how many really think a MAPS for bike lanes would pass. While I wouldn't be against it, it seems DOA.

It would never pass on it's own but I bet there would be more folks using bike paths than going to minor league soccer games.

It would pass if the mayor and several council members used some political capital

Oh good grief. This MAPS will be great just like the others. There will be projects you love and projects you don't. The brand is strong and in the end they will come up with the right mix of projects to appeal to voters. I have no doubt. i only liked about three of the MAPS three items but in the end, I'm excited about the Convention Center. Just an example. If we want to be like Cincinnati or Atlanta or something I guess we can dispense with MAPS and allow the suburbs to run the show. I have nothing against either city but they don't have the ability to do anything to move the ball forward like we do in MAPS.

If the projects and ideas are bad, it won't pass, but I think the projects and ideas will end up being good.

If we really wanted to do something transformational, allocate all $1B to protected bike lanes and related bike infrastructure.

That is the only way we will ever be able to make a dent in an otherwise overwhelming problem.

It would also be the best economic development tool ever, as it would instantly bring attention to younger, more energetic people (the creative class) and help keep the same here. It would also be a great asset to people in lower income brackets who would instantly have a viable and inexpensive way to get around this sprawling, car-centric town.

And help deal with massive obesity and general poor health issues that plague this city and state.


But, alas, they are talking about throwing $50M at bike lanes, paths and sidewalks, not enough to do much of anything.

Pete, right or wrong this would never pass. You are talking about one of the most spread out cities in the country. Agree or not its car centric and to spend 10 years solely on bike/road add ons would be DOA. $1B is 10 years of MAPS tax. This means nothing else gets done not even buses. Not trying to be debbie downer or grade it on merits rather the reality of our population. If all voters see nothing in it for them they will vote no. And I have no idea but guess less than 2% ride bikes on roads here. Novel idea but its too narrow in scope to get a passing vote.

I haven't ridden in years but tell me why this wouldn't work. Why can't certain streets - like, for example, NW 17th and Harvey (or Hudson or Robinson or Walker) be used as bike/bus only, cars - LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY? Then people can bike virtually traffic free while not interfering with busy auto routes. Obviously, the routes would change and move to other streets but it seems like it would prevent the need to spend a friggin' billion dollars on bike lanes, keep major traffic arteries while route residents should be perfectly happy with the arrangement. Im sure adequate side road routes could be found in most places in the city. Where side roads dont exist, THEN look to building new routes. I'd bet a pretty decent system could be set up for $10-20 million instead of the hundreds of millions to billions being thrown around.

I haven't ridden in years but tell me why this wouldn't work. Why can't certain streets - like, for example, NW 17th and Harvey (or Hudson or Robinson or Walker) be used as bike/bus only, cars - LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY? Then people can bike virtually traffic free while not interfering with busy auto routes. Obviously, the routes would change and move to other streets but it seems like it would prevent the need to spend a friggin' billion dollars on bike lanes, keep major traffic arteries while route residents should be perfectly happy with the arrangement. Im sure adequate side road routes could be found in most places in the city. Where side roads dont exist, THEN look to building new routes. I'd bet a pretty decent system could be set up for $10-20 million instead of the hundreds of millions to billions being thrown around.

That's why a page or two ago, I suggested capping some of the creeks/drainage ditches on the south side and converting them into into jogging/biking trails. Those creeks kind of meander through the city, and hit multiple neighborhoods. I presume the city already owns them. The only time you'd be exposed to traffic would be when you cross a major street. There's nothing like this on the north side, but on the south side it would give you two major paths to build your jogging/biking trail system around.

That's why a page or two ago, I suggested capping some of the creeks/drainage ditches on the south side and converting them into into jogging/biking trails. Those creeks kind of meander through the city, and hit multiple neighborhoods. I presume the city already owns them. The only time you'd be exposed to traffic would be when you cross a major street. There's nothing like this on the north side, but on the south side it would give you two major paths to build your jogging/biking trail system around.

This is a fantastic idea. There are bike trails like this in the DC metro.

Maybe I am not envisioning it right, but that sounds amazingly expensive to me. Wouldn't it basically have to take the form of a lengthwise bridge over the entirety of the creek/drainage ditch in question?

I hope OKC doesn't cap its urban creeks. I think many cities are uncapping them where possible.

I hope OKC doesn't cap its urban creeks. I think many cities are uncapping them where possible.
I was just about to post the same thing. I was trying to find the (now old) story of the river in South Korea that they've worked to uncap.

I would hope they would put more money in the streetcar and at least double the miles of tracks.

I would hope they would put more money in the streetcar and at least double the miles of tracks.

Once they get the convention center complex completed; they'll have a better grasp about the potential expansion of the streetcar. It will be to late to put it on MAPS IV; then again if MAPS IV is over $1 billion they may be room to build or consider some additional items. Don't look for the streetcar to be one of them unless the demand skyrockets.

They should have learned from previous MAPS initiatives to budget a little extra for cost overruns in addition to contingency money.

MAPS III infrastructure contingency ($17 million): https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/projects/infrastructure-contingency

I have an internal meeting about possible streetcar extensions tomorrow. If this something that you feel passionate about, I would encourage you to attend the upcoming MAPS 4 public meeting regarding public transit-

City Hall (Municipal Building) Council Chambers
9:00 AM
July 31st

I did write a pretty extensive report about the improvements that needed to be completed to the bus system. Pete has a copy of that and it looks like most of those proposed bus system improvements from the report are going to stick.

Time is running out: we will lose USL AAA soccer without a soccer specific stadium, the franchise ownership could be forced to forfeit the franchise where it would be sold and relocated to another city.

Pro-MAPS voters generally do show up to vote. The anti-MAPS voters generally are very vocal, but they don't vote. MAPS projects have passed by comfortable margins, and will continue to do so, unless we see something like a soccer stadium.

I highly doubt your typical MAPS voter is much of a soccer fan. There aren't really that many soccer fans in OKC. USL is only attracting 4,600 per game. Baseball seasons are 140 games or so with soccer being only 34 (1/2 of each away). USL is nowhere close to being the draw the Dodgers are. It would make more sense to renovate the Dodgers' stadium than to build a new one for a USL team whose league appears to be ratcheting up demands on franchises.

We shouldn't be in the business of responding to arbitrary deadlines from third-rate sports franchises.

Pro-MAPS voters generally do show up to vote. The anti-MAPS voters generally are very vocal, but they don't vote. MAPS projects have passed by comfortable margins, and will continue to do so, unless we see something like a soccer stadium.

I highly doubt your typical MAPS voter is much of a soccer fan. There aren't really that many soccer fans in OKC. USL is only attracting 4,600 per game. Baseball seasons are 140 games or so with soccer being only 34 (1/2 of each away). USL is nowhere close to being the draw the Dodgers are. It would make more sense to renovate the Dodgers' stadium than to build a new one for a USL team whose league appears to be ratcheting up demands on franchises.

We shouldn't be in the business of responding to arbitrary deadlines from third-rate sports franchises.

Note: Last MAPS vote was over 10 years ago. Much more local discussion now than then. Plus social media and info is 1000% different now vs then. Back then all we really had was the Jokelahoma rag.

Do you have facts to back up claims that MAPS no voters never showed up 10 years ago? Saying it passed is not an answer either. If you don’t know how many were against it prior to vote you can’t then claim lots of them never voted either. To get factual stats requires both of these data points.

Our city has grown and changed so much in 10 years we really don’t know will happen. We can guess.

Keep in mind that the next MAPS vote will be a special election, so not tied to any ballot with large political decisions. So, typically low turnout.

The Sooner Poll that was just done tries to sample a cross-section of those who typically vote in these types of elections.

I've also heard that the polling done by the Chamber (which they never make public) is closely aligned with the Sooner Poll.

As for fans, you can't gauge support by an OKC USL crowd at a venue like Taft Stadium situated in an area that doesn't provide a choice of pre-post game amenities like you have in Bricktown.

Several of us support reconfiguration of Bricktown Ballpark into a 15,000-20,000 seat soccer & Amerk football stadium; why not invest that $65-$80 million projected for the soccer stadium in a new AAA ballpark facility downtown.

Note: Last MAPS vote was over 10 years ago. Much more local discussion now than then. Plus social media and info is 1000% different now vs then. Back then all we really had was the Jokelahoma rag.

54% voted in favor. Back then, we did have diverse media outlets. If you had listened to Mark Shannon's radio show back then, you'd have thought the consensus was against MAPS. The Oklahoman was perhaps the only strongly supportive media entity we had regarding MAPS. The police and fire unions, having not had their demands met, mounted vigorous anti-MAPS campaigns. At the end of the day, 54% said yes and 46% said no. That's an 8-point swing--not a small thing by any stretch.

If I can recall the media coverage at the time, similar SoonerPoll stats were written up in The Gazette. The convention center, like a proposed soccer stadium was polling lower than 20%.

I would tend to think out of all of the MAPS projects proposed, the ballot can maybe succeed with one unpopular item on it. If I had to hold my nose and vote, I could see myself supporting a State Fair Colosseum which would put our facilities in that area at being first rate and world class before a soccer stadium for a second or third rate team with an uncertain future in the market.

I would like to say that I appreciate health living initiatives such as bike lanes. However, our city is in crisis with mental health issues, animal welfare, and public transit.

This week I had to intervene with a woman who was considering suicide by jumping off of the parking garage next to our office. It was an extremely upsetting event for me. It was a directly personal reminder of our immediate substance abuse and mental health crisis.

Our niece and nephew went to the animal shelter to adopt a cat. That was a upsetting event as well. The place is unbelievably inadequate to serve as our public intake and care center for our city's animals.

The bus system was not addressed as all in the last MAPS despite ardent attempts to bundle bus shelters and significant physical transit investments and improvements with the streetcar initiative.

The State of Oklahoma has completely abdicated responsibility for the welfare and well being of our citizens and animals. We have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and take care of these crisis situations as citizens of our aspiring city. Enough with the bull****. Spend the billion dollars where it will immediately count. –Jeff Bezdek

I agree with you, but don't write off bike infrastructure as just a healthy liv ing initiative. I believe it is an important piece to create a more transit friendly, equitable city. It's the cheapest, lowest hanging fruit to improve the potential quality of life for all in the short term and could get the ball rolling in terms of reducing sprawl, our greatest enemy

I wonder if the Women’s World Cup run will move the needle any?

I wonder if the Women’s World Cup run will move the needle any?

In moves the needle for about 6 months; then as usual, the celebration will be short lived. Wish it had a lasting impact though.

I would like to say that I appreciate health living initiatives such as bike lanes. However, our city is in crisis with mental health issues, animal welfare, and public transit.

This week I had to intervene with a woman who was considering suicide by jumping off of the parking garage next to our office. It was an extremely upsetting event for me. It was a directly personal reminder of our immediate substance abuse and mental health crisis.

Our niece and nephew went to the animal shelter to adopt a cat. That was a upsetting event as well. The place is unbelievably inadequate to serve as our public intake and care center for our city's animals.

The bus system was not addressed as all in the last MAPS despite ardent attempts to bundle bus shelters and significant physical transit investments and improvements with the streetcar initiative.

The State of Oklahoma has completely abdicated responsibility for the welfare and well being of our citizens and animals. We have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and take care of these crisis situations as citizens of our aspiring city. Enough with the bull****. Spend the billion dollars where it will immediately count. –Jeff Bezdek

UP, I agree. I think we can / should add some additional bike and sidewalk infrastructure as well as some beautification of major corridors throughout the city. I'm also a huge proponent of building an animal shelter that fits the bigger city we are; the current one is a dump and very overcrowded. They had to euthanize 476 animals in June!

I’m in favor of the stadium. I’m in favor of everything I have seen, so far. I voted against MAPS 1, because I thought the canal was dumb and our city leaders were dumb. I was wrong.
As I have gotten older, I have figured out that the big ticket items have been good for our city since the civic center, if not earlier.

Pro-MAPS voters generally do show up to vote. The anti-MAPS voters generally are very vocal, but they don't vote. MAPS projects have passed by comfortable margins, and will continue to do so, unless we see something like a soccer stadium.

I highly doubt your typical MAPS voter is much of a soccer fan. There aren't really that many soccer fans in OKC. USL is only attracting 4,600 per game. Baseball seasons are 140 games or so with soccer being only 34 (1/2 of each away). USL is nowhere close to being the draw the Dodgers are. It would make more sense to renovate the Dodgers' stadium than to build a new one for a USL team whose league appears to be ratcheting up demands on franchises.

We shouldn't be in the business of responding to arbitrary deadlines from third-rate sports franchises.

Moreover, as someone deeply passionate about soccer and connected to the sport in Oklahoma, even I can see through the "multi-use" aspect being pitched by soccer stadium proponents as a thinly veiled attempt to subsidize Energy FC.

I imagine their long game is to try and secure one of the MLS' expansion slots, which to call a long shot does disservice to long shots. Even if they see their immediate future as a mid-tier operator, their numbers thus far in a similarly situated setup to other league teams leaves much to be desired.

Polling data shared at meetings I've attended showed an overwhelming desire to invest in existing parks and recreational infrastructure to enhance citizen interaction and healthy living programming. It seems like simple math to follow the will of the people here and put money back into these areas, and find alternative funding for the soccer stadium.

No matter the outcome, MAPS remains an innovative way to invest in municipal projects. I haven't always agreed with every iteration (I wasn't old enough to on the 1st one anyway), but there has always been something positive to come from each initiative. I imagine the same will be said for MAPS IV.

UP, I agree. I think we can / should add some additional bike and sidewalk infrastructure as well as some beautification of major corridors throughout the city. I'm also a huge proponent of building an animal shelter that fits the bigger city we are; the current one is a dump and very overcrowded. They had to euthanize 476 animals in June!

I am all for wholistic corridor development that integrates bike lanes, sidewalks, transit, and beautification all into one coherent linear package. For that matter, simply completing the OKC Sidewalks Master Plan flushed out through the MAPS 3 process would be a huge step. We simply had a proposal such as this. It hasn't even been coherently addressee through the current process up to this point.

I just think we have several very poignant crises happening that need to be addressed taht we can easily identify. We know that a modern animal shelter would be somewhere between $40 - $45 million and meaningful bus improvements $68 - $140 million.

Has anyone read anywhere what the proposed budget is to address the Mental Health proposals?

Does anyone understand what is being pitched for the “innovation district?” This seems like the most amorphous item.

Does anyone understand what is being pitched for the “innovation district?” This seems like the most amorphous item.

http://www.okcinnovation.com/


Looks like the developers behind it want TIF money to build up the area around the Health Sciences Center. I suppose they wouldn't turn down free money from other sources as well. Here's another way to ruin the MAPS brand. A straight up giveaway to corporate interests.

MAPS 4 will be a challenge to include projects like Mental Health & Animal Welfare facilities.

There are limited funding sources for Mental Health & Animal Welfare available. OKC can provide the facilities thru the extension of the MAPS initiative. The Mental Health facility needs are also being aligned with the current conditions of the county jail.

The OU Health Science Center District is where many of the our city's most high paying jobs will be created as a result of expansion and innovation techniques. Have had personal conversations with health care professionals & providers who have concerns about the conditions at the county jail--realize that's another issue.

We are anxious to see what items will appear on the MAPS 4 initiative. Please get involved and attend those upcoming meetings that excite your interest.

http://www.okcinnovation.com/


Looks like the developers behind it want TIF money to build up the area around the Health Sciences Center. I suppose they wouldn't turn down free money from other sources as well. Here's another way to ruin the MAPS brand. A straight up giveaway to corporate interests.

While there are probably too many warnings about "this will kill MAPS," I have to agree with your general sentiment. This proposal seems half baked at best.

Just a friendly reminder to fellow OKC Talk members that the first of these four public meetings start at 9 am today in the council chambers.

Items include-

A. Palomar
B. Parks
C. Sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and street lights
D. Freedom Center

The next upcoming meeting is on Thursday.

You can watch these meetings live on the city's Youtube channel.

Speaking of:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVU2c7SxXwE

The Palomar presentation just finished, and it sounds like a very worthy cause to include.

First presentation in today's MAPS 4 meeting, Palomar.

Proposing a large facility in Midtown; I presume it will be on or near their present site, which is just north of Bleu Garten.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/palomar1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/palomar2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/palomar3.jpg

Parks presentation:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks4.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks5.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks6.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks7.jpg

I'm not interested in continuing the tax for a bunch of playground structures. Why can't kids just play in parks with trees and fields? Why so much development for the parks?

Reminds me of the grumpy old man skits from SNL. "When I was a kid we (fill in blank) and we liked it."

Also from Parks & Recs, advocating for Sports Tourism 20+ soccer pitch complex which would draw in regional tournaments and their dollars.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports4.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports5.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports6.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcsports7.jpg

Palomar is proposing arch fees of over $27 per square foot! That would be ridiculous in the private sector. But I guess thats normal for publicly financed projects.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsriver.jpg