http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/mapsparks8.jpg

The dollar figure shown includes the proposed river improvements.

What exactly are the proposed river improvements?

What exactly are the proposed river improvements?

Two posts up.

i am full on board with most of the river enhancements

There was a bit of shade thrown by Nikki NIce...

After the main Parks presentation, everything else was labeled 'ideas from city council'.

The sports tourism thing was clearly Stonecipher. But after the river improvements section, Nikki asked, "JoBeth Hamon and I wanted to know who submitted this?" And Holt said, "It was me."

Nice (not very nicely); "Well, none of us knew about that." Holt, "That's why we're here".

A bunch of different people presenting and talking about sidewalks, bike infrastructure and street lights.

Nothing new really, just need the money to actually fund some of the priorities identified in Bike Walk OKC.

Point was made that this would take decades to accomplish, even with the help of MAPS4 funds.

In addition to the City presenting on the Bike Walk OKC initiative, Tony Carfang -- a software engineeer with Boeing -- is delivering a passionate and intelligent presentation.

Tony is part of https://www.okbike.org and has moved all over the U.S. before coming to OKC with Boeing. He said is basically providing details on how poor our bike infrastructure is compared to other cities.

His line "Paint does not equal protection" (referring to the handful of green-painted bike lines downtown) drew a big round of applause.


This whole group of pedestrian and bike-friendly measures is backed very passionately by James Cooper and JoBeth Hamon. James bikes everywhere (including to city council meetings) and JoBeth doesn't own a car. My understanding is that Holt was trying to broker a deal whereby all these things would get something like $80M out of the total $1B MAPS 4 budget. That's about what they got in MAPS 3.

They'll cut a deal, but I would bet every dollar I have its significantly more than 80M.

They'll cut a deal, but I would bet every dollar I have its significantly more than 80M.

I hope so.

It's a significant bargaining chip because it's very popular with voters.

I hope so.

It's a significant bargaining chip because it's very popular with voters.

Holt is going to want a unanimous vote by the council too. Presents a united front to the city and will help it pass. He does not want a maps failure on his legacy.

If I'm cooper or hamon, I'm asking for 150, settling for 120, but also it's one of, if not the first project to get funded. Funding order is important too, Maps3 has long been over before the CC actually gets built and running.

Give me 300m in MAPS 4 for sidewalks, bike infrastructure, & trails, and I'll vote for it pretty much regardless of what else is listed.

Maps3 has long been over before the CC actually gets built and running.

You may recall that the powerful members of the convention center committee (the CVB and Larry Nichols) lobbied to have it moved to the front of the MAPS 3 line, but then screwed themselves over by spending a ton of time trying to land the site between Scissortail Park and Myriad Gardens, never taking into proper account the land price would be far too high.

They are near the end now only for that reason.

You may recall that the powerful members of the convention center committee (the CVB and Larry Nichols) lobbied to have it moved to the front of the MAPS 3 line, but then screwed themselves over by spending a ton of time trying to land the site between Scissortail Park and Myriad Gardens, never taking into proper account the land price would be far too high.

They are near the end now only for that reason.

Vaguely remember that. Kinda funny.

FWIW, trails and sidewalks were about $58 million in MAPS 3. There were no bike lanes included at all. If they are able to do about $80 million in MAPS 4, of which $75 million or so would be specifically for sidewalks and bike lanes, that would be a significant increase in sidewalks to help complete the Sidewalk Master Plan and a somewhat infinite increase in bike lanes when compared overall to past city history.

There was information that was quite revealing today. The meeting itself was about 5 hours and twenty minutes long. Between the vetting meetings I have sat in behind the scenes combined with the large public meeting today, I think it is highly probable that the majority of MAPS 4 proposals are going to revolve around human needs rather than wants.

Also, the entire Palomar presentation was probably the most moving public discussion I have ever witnessed first hand at City Hall. Riveting...

I am not impressed with the parks proposal, I hope it fails

You can see all the presentations here:

https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-4

I am not impressed with the parks proposal, I hope it fails

i feel equally about the 100mil for bike lanes

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

I'm not arguing for or against this. I don't see how they can pay for operations once this is up and running. You build facilities for $40 to $80 then have no funds to operate them adequately.

I am not impressed with the parks proposal, I hope it fails

The interesting thing about the "sports tourism" portion is that they propose a complete redesign of C.B. Cameron to get from their 2 current regulation fields to a total of 20 to meet the minimum field requirements for regional tournaments. They then show a map that has a park on the South Side with 16 current regulation fields in one place (South Lakes), another park with 11 IIRC (Wisenhunt), and still another with 5 newly installed regulation fields (Lightening Creek)...all within 5-10 minutes of one another.

Seems like a better spend of this money would be to spread investment out among all of these complexes, rather than sinking it all into one. Tulsa already does this with their larger soccer tournaments, as teams often have to play at several different locations. Tournaments in Frisco, TX are often the same way.

It would also go a long way to reinforce the vision of #1OKC by keeping locations south of the river in mind when considering transformational investments like MAPS 4 is shaping up to be.

The interesting thing about the "sports tourism" portion is that they propose a complete redesign of C.B. Cameron to get from their 2 current regulation fields to a total of 20 to meet the minimum field requirements for regional tournaments. They then show a map that has a park on the South Side with 16 current regulation fields in one place (South Lakes), another park with 11 IIRC (Wisenhunt), and still another with 5 newly installed regulation fields (Lightening Creek)...all within 5-10 minutes of one another.

Seems like a better spend of this money would be to spread investment out among all of these complexes, rather than sinking it all into one. Tulsa already does this with their larger soccer tournaments, as teams often have to play at several different locations. Tournaments in Frisco, TX are often the same way.

It would also go a long way to reinforce the vision of #1OKC by keeping locations south of the river in mind when considering transformational investments like MAPS 4 is shaping up to be.

the sports marketing part of the CVB seems to think having all the fields in one place ups the chances of OKC landing events

the sports marketing part of the CVB seems to think having all the fields in one place ups the chances of OKC landing events

Stonecipher is pushing this along with one of the part-owners of the Energy.

I know we still have 3 more full days of reviewing projects but there are so many ideas it's going to be hard to pick out the 'best'.

There are lots of things we could do but most of them could be financed through other means (general obligation bonds, fundraising).

I still don't see the big sexy things that get the yes votes.

I know we still have 3 more full days of reviewing projects but there are so many ideas it's going to be hard to pick out the 'best'.

There are lots of things we could do but most of them could be financed through other means (general obligation bonds, fundraising).

I still don't see the big sexy things that get the yes votes.

which is very concerning

I know we still have 3 more full days of reviewing projects but there are so many ideas it's going to be hard to pick out the 'best'.

There are lots of things we could do but most of them could be financed through other means (general obligation bonds, fundraising).

I still don't see the big sexy things that get the yes votes.

Agree. I'm 100000% in favor of pumping as much money into pedestrian and bike infrastructure as possible. I beleive there are few things as important that we can do as a community to improve quality of life for all people and begin to solve some of our cities issues implicit in it's design. However, I think it will be an incredibly tough sell to the average OKC voter if it's not coupled with some sort of "sexy" project that people will understand.

^

But there are no sexy projects.

And that is what has always carried MAPS in the past.

the sports marketing part of the CVB seems to think having all the fields in one place ups the chances of OKC landing events

I know. its unfortunate. Taking transformative money (15-30 million) and dumping it all into one location is short-sighted, especially when the other parks I mention have excellent fields already.

Stonecipher is pushing this along with one of the part-owners of the Energy.

It's funny how public this knowledge is.

My hope for the city is that all areas get an equal share.

^

But there are no sexy projects.

And that is what has always carried MAPS in the past.


The polling demonstrates the public is down for a “needs-based” agenda this time.

The polling demonstrates the public is down for a “needs-based” agenda this time.

It's not that simple.

Some of those areas -- in a very general way -- were viewed positively in the polling.

But the MAPS vote is for a slate of projects and in the past the big, shiny things carried those less popular. We are talking about something very different this time around.

^

But there are no sexy projects.

And that is what has always carried MAPS in the past.

I don't know about that. From what I recall, trails and sidewalks always score really high. So did the regional old people fitness centers. They were always a small part of the budget, but they polled well. A lot of the big sexy projects would poll at like 53% support or something like that.

Except for MAPS for Kids, we've always had a big sexy project, and it was marketed to promote those, but I don't know that we'd have a problem without them. A MAPS that focused entirely on community needs (mental health, domestic violence center, sidewalks, etc) might be wildly popular.

MAPS initiatives have done much for the positive profile, quality of life & image of our city. Support a variety of items that will continue enhancements.

Our Riversports Rapids was a result of a similar Charlotte project (U.S. National Whitewater Center); the Bricktown Canal from San Antonio's Riverwalk.

We do need more 'protected' bike lanes & trials; address domestic violence & mental health. More sidewalks because developers don't include them.

Let your voice be heard at city hall.

We'll get a craft of projects to the tune of $1 billion; the biggest MAPS initiative placed before the voters.

If there is any organized opposition to MAPS 4, will they seize on the recent closures of many schools that received MAPS for Kids money?

I know. its unfortunate. Taking transformative money (15-30 million) and dumping it all into one location is short-sighted, especially when the other parks I mention have excellent fields already.

They literally said they wanted to improve all of the existing parks too. Did you go to the meeting? Did you even watch it?

Here is more info on the proposed animal shelter:

https://pawsformaps4.com/

It's not that simple.

Some of those areas -- in a very general way -- were viewed positively in the polling.

But the MAPS vote is for a slate of projects and in the past the big, shiny things carried those less popular. We are talking about something very different this time around.

It is true that the streetcar and the MAPS 3 park did in fact poll positively and help tow the 2009 vote. Senior wellness centers also influenced the outcome. However, over the past ten years we have seen a significant shift in civic engagement around making investment outside of the core.

Many of the MAPS 3 projects were derided in official city council campaigns post vote. There was also the "MAPS for neighborhoods" initiative was completely gaseous in nature. There was no plan. There wasn't even a meaningful outline. However, that organic group of people helped solidify a narrative that has stuck.

Throw in many ham-fisted corporate PR snafus, conspiracy theories, and demolitions of beloved buildings, and you have seen all of these elements galvanize the organic "anything but shiny and downtown" narrative.

If you look at the aggregation of support around certain combinations of projects, MAPS 4 would easily pass if it were held in today's environment. It won't take big shiny projects this time. The public is far more engaged its formation and it is doubtful that there will be meaningful opposition.

Maps 5 will likely have a big shiny new thunder arena on it anyway. If you want the big sexy projects, just take maps 4 off, they’ll be back for maps 5.

Maps 5 will likely have a big shiny new thunder arena on it anyway. If you want the big sexy projects, just take maps 4 off, they’ll be back for maps 5.

That's not the sort of big sexy project that gets people out to vote in favor. Too many people are wise to the stadium cycle upgrade con.

Also, on previous maps there were clear choices for big sexy projects.

New ballpark in Bricktown
The peake
The canal
Riversports
CC
A park

Etc etc

There isn’t a clear cut big sexy project to try and tackle. Maybe soccer? Feels just a touch too early.

State fair has political issues, people are mad at them for tearing everything cool down, in favor of making it look like an industrial warehouse district.

Except my crystal lagoon idea, that would have been awesome.

That's not the sort of big sexy project that gets people out to vote in favor. Too many people are wise to the stadium cycle upgrade con.

When they ask for a new one, upgrade or lose them. Bet Seattle has some serious buyers remorse they made that principled stand.

By the time maps5 comes up for vote, gets funded and new Peake gets built, old Peale is 40 years old.

We have the Thunder because a bunch of OKC businessmen bought the team and brought them here because the OKC powers that be that they are a part of wanted a team. As long as that ownership group doesn't change I won't believe for a second that we are at risk of losing the Thunder.

Also, on previous maps there were clear choices for big sexy projects.

New ballpark in Bricktown
The peake
The canal
Riversports
CC
A park

Etc etc

There isn’t a clear cut big sexy project to try and tackle. Maybe soccer? Feels just a touch too early.

State fair has political issues, people are mad at them for tearing everything cool down, in favor of making it look like an industrial warehouse district.

Except my crystal lagoon idea, that would have been awesome.

I second this. If people knew more about these lagoons, it'd be very popular MAPS 4 addition imo.

Again, you need to have a variety of projects on the MAPS initiatives...

As far as a MAPS 5 (reference: gopokes88 #1237) a new Peake may be a real possibility or you WILL see the NBA Thunder relocated). Expect a new arena 10 years from now 2030 to have a price tag of over $1 billion (On city owned land) of which the Thunder will be expected to contribute to its construction.

OKC has $190 million invested in The Peake, $10 in the Thunder practice facility.

There are plenty of cities willing to do as Memphis did in 2002, a $250 million mortgage to claim a grand prized NBA franchise to market the city's quality of life. Memphis received $90 million 20 year naming rights to the arena--those naming rights went to the NBA Grizzlies franchise.

I second this. If people knew more about these lagoons, it'd be very popular MAPS 4 addition imo.

I just don’t think the appetite is there this time around. But it would be very on brand for okc to not have a beach and ocean, so eh whatevs let’s just build one.

Put it on the south side too so people down there finally get something. How many families in okc can’t afford to go to a beach? This would be a cool way to bring a similar experience to them. Think of the crowds it would draw in the summer with kids.

It's not that simple.

Some of those areas -- in a very general way -- were viewed positively in the polling.

But the MAPS vote is for a slate of projects and in the past the big, shiny things carried those less popular. We are talking about something very different this time around.

We don’t need as much as we did with first 3. My stance is lower these into 2 year or so MAPS. Even if one fails the next one will be ready to roll out the next year. Can faster adjust to changing needs and voters will see results of each one faster which will keep them more engaged in next one. Its been 10 years and lots has changed since then. Smaller package engages those behind it and maybe no voters are not as outraged since its only 2 years and $200M vice 10 years and $1B.

....Except my crystal lagoon idea, that would have been awesome.

You and I both... I looked at Crystal Lagoons on Google maps & elsewhere long after you mentioned it months (year?) ago!.. That would be amazing! We could even tie it in to the healthy living initiatives.

We have the Thunder because a bunch of OKC businessmen bought the team and brought them here because the OKC powers that be that they are a part of wanted a team. As long as that ownership group doesn't change I won't believe for a second that we are at risk of losing the Thunder.

They purchased the team for $350 million, the team is now worth an estimated $1.25 BILLION dollars. The NBA is experiencing growth and has a younger core audience that is more engaged on modern social media (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.) compared to its competitors NHL, MLS, NFL, and MLB. The value of the franchise can and will continue to increase drastically. The NBA is positioned better than any other American professional sports league to attract and international audience (e.g. The NBA is the most popular league for viewership in China. At this point it would be silly for the owners to sell especially with the direction the team is going currently. With the roster in a rebuild state the huge tax bills ownership has been footing for the past few years will go straight towards the profitability of the franchise. The Thunder have consistently made the ownership money, development of the league will only continue to contribute to that. It just doesn't make sense for them to sell the team.

We don’t need as much as we did with first 3. My stance is lower these into 2 year or so MAPS. Even if one fails the next one will be ready to roll out the next year. Can faster adjust to changing needs and voters will see results of each one faster which will keep them more engaged in next one. Its been 10 years and lots has changed since then. Smaller package engages those behind it and maybe no voters are not as outraged since its only 2 years and $200M vice 10 years and $1B.

I think we still need a ton of stuff, but there aren't as many easy, obvious choices. There are a lot of groups in the city who have their hands out (I'm looking at you, fairgrounds and soccer team) that would turn the public off immediately. I could get behind a 3 year MAPS program to do some smaller projects, and then do it again a few years later. Like if MAPS 4 was the Domestic Violence Center, the Animal Shelter, a Mental Health Center, and $50 million for sidewalks and trails, all paid for in 3 years, I would vote for that. They could give people a bit of a breather, let the convention center come online, and reassess in a few years.

Now, I think there's going to need to be a major MAPS initiative to handle transportation that works hand in hand with the Regional Transit Authority. But that's a big, big project and I don't think they're ready to move on it yet. Having maybe two smaller MAPS in between would give them time to get all their ducks in a row.

I just don’t think the appetite is there this time around. But it would be very on brand for okc to not have a beach and ocean, so eh whatevs let’s just build one.

Put it on the south side too so people down there finally get something. How many families in okc can’t afford to go to a beach? This would be a cool way to bring a similar experience to them. Think of the crowds it would draw in the summer with kids.

This is so true! Your idea for the lagoon is far and away the best. They are letting the public give their own ideas at the end of each presentation meeting. Someone needs to get over there and bring this up.

I'm not arguing for or against this. I don't see how they can pay for operations once this is up and running. You build facilities for $40 to $80 then have no funds to operate them adequately.

Palomar is a nonprofit. The city wouldn’t be on the hook for operations, right? I have heard some question whether handing taxpayer money to nonprofits is the way to go.

If you have ever communicated with someone at Palomar, which I have, they all have @okc.gov addresses, for whatever that's worth.

If you have ever communicated with someone at Palomar, which I have, they all have @okc.gov addresses, for whatever that's worth.

Interesting. It is a cause I support. Interested to hear what the plan is for homeless and mentally ill. In my mind it’s a facility of some sort but I’m not up on the plans, and I’m confused how that may intersect or differ from the plans for the diversion hub. Historically MAPS has been a great tool for building community infrastructure.

If you have ever communicated with someone at Palomar, which I have, they all have @okc.gov addresses, for whatever that's worth.

Interesting. It is a cause I support. Interested to hear what the plan is for homeless and mentally ill. In my mind it’s a facility of some sort but I’m not up on the plans, and I’m confused how that may intersect or differ from the plans for the diversion hub. Historically MAPS has been a great tool for building community infrastructure.

I think it’s time to give MAPS a break.

A no vote is permanent; the city won’t be able to pass another one if this one is voted down. . MAPS 4 is a solution looking for a problem.

I think it’s time to give MAPS a break.

A no vote is permanent; the city won’t be able to pass another one if this one is voted down. . MAPS 4 is a solution looking for a problem.

They better hope for a low voter turnout if they expect this to pass IMO.

I think it’s time to give MAPS a break.

A no vote is permanent; the city won’t be able to pass another one if this one is voted down. . MAPS 4 is a solution looking for a problem.

I would normally agree with you, but private investment is SSOOOOOOO weak in this city. There are needs, and they will never get met by private investment. Hence why MAPS is important.

I think it’s time to give MAPS a break.

A no vote is permanent; the city won’t be able to pass another one if this one is voted down. . MAPS 4 is a solution looking for a problem.

Gonna have to very respectfully disagree. Most of the items presented address very real problems. I'm surprised to see you appear to minimize them in this fashion.

I also believe the "it won't pass this time" folks may raise good points, but are underestimating the equity of the MAPS brand.

IF (operative word) the deciders don't try to shove something extremely unpalatable down voters' throats, I would bet it will pass and pass by possibly a larger margin than MAPS 3.

Of course there are tons of needs. However, MAPS has primarily been about paying for the WANTS of the city. You’re not going to get SW 104th and Penn to vote yes on a new mental health facility or animal shelter no matter how much it may be needed. The fact that we have to have a community meeting to find what to spend the money on should tell you everything. There’s no vision. There’s no grand idea. Instead of rallying the city to a common purpose, we are splitting the community to find ideas. There’s a bunch of ideas and everyone will feel like they lose.

It’s a waste of the “MAPS brand” to bastardize it in this fashion. In 10 years when we really need to fund something extraordinary that “brand” will have been tarnished by the MAPS 4 no vote, or controversial yes vote on a bunch of projects no one is thrilled about.

It’s a waste of the “MAPS brand” to bastardize it in this fashion. In 10 years when we really need to fund something extraordinary that “brand” will have been tarnished by the MAPS 4 no vote, or controversial yes vote on a bunch of projects no one is thrilled about.

Clearly I won't be able to change your mind but we built a library with MAPS and it was awesome. Why not a place for homeless people to sleep or an alternative facility to people going to jail or a new animal shelter? You are underestimating Mayor Holt a bit here as well. He knows OKC politics as well as anyone ever has and he doesn't want a failed MAPS vote on his watch.