The supreme court is the deciding authority, looks like this MAPS is constitutional and I suspect so were all the others. I'm kinda glad we now have precedent for this, it nicely defangs the question going forward.


Shadid's attorney, Jay Barnett, said he was discussing with Shadid whether to petition the court for a rehearing.

That will be a waste of money if they try, the court isn't going to reverse their own unanimous decision.

It's up on OSCN. This was the point I think lost on Shadid. The tax isn't allocated directly for the purpose of building X or Y. It's for the purpose of capital projects, a provisional list we have, but subject to change by the Council. Except that having a provisional list of goals for the tax, it's just like every other excise tax. .25% goes to the Zoo, what the Zoo does with that is up to the Zoo Trust. If it were to increase to .35% and was marketed as an increase for the creation of a downtown aquarium which would have more than one exhibit, same result.

I'm also glad he challenged this law because at least now we know. That's why at the end of the day, I like Shadid and would support him for City Council again, even though I agree with him almost none of the time. The Council shouldn't be a rubber stamp and having to answer tough questions only makes us better.

^

Keep in mind that they changed MAPS specifically due to this law and the real threat of someone contesting it. So, highly likely if this had been challenged before the ruling would have been quite different.

Did they, though? I remember it being stated somewhere on here that they changed it this time around due to the endowment plans in this MAPS requiring slightly different language. Is there any proof that the current language is a result of edits from the MAPS 3 language for more constitutional soundness?

They threatened to challenge MAPS III and I think MAPS III was written in the same manner as MAPS IV. David Slane had threatened to challenge MAPS III, but ended up passing on it.

They threatened to challenge MAPS III and I think MAPS III was written in the same manner as MAPS IV. David Slane had threatened to challenge MAPS III, but ended up passing on it.

Right. MAPS 3 was the one where they completely changed the wording and for MAPS 4 they just tweaked it.

LOL. What a waste of time and money. Unanimously rejected by the State Supreme Court. Not unconstitutional. Next.

One thing I learned from the lawsuit that I did not realize is the MAPS 4 tax is considered a general revenue tax. The city can collect the taxes and do whatever they want with it. There is no commitment of tax dollars to any of the projects. They could spend all $900M on one project if the city wanted to. Another reason to vote no...I was already a no vote.

Another note, MAPS 4 is not popular is the SW/NW OKC (Yukon and Mustang area). This is one of the highest income areas of the city and our streets and infrastructure are terrible. This is the general consensus I am hearing. I know there is a MAPS for streets, but the general mindset is fix the infrastructure before we throw another $900M into the part of the city that we don't live near and will may never use (like the waterpark).

One thing I learned from the lawsuit that I did not realize is the MAPS 4 tax is considered a general revenue tax. The city can collect the taxes and do whatever they want with it. There is no commitment of tax dollars to any of the projects. They could spend all $900M on one project if the city wanted to. Another reason to vote no...I was already a no vote....

I believe all MAPS were that way, it was just trust by the citizens in the city government that they'd do the right thing, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So far, they've pretty much done what they said they were going to do with the money. Yes, there were exceptions, but none too huge to distrust the whole concept.

Ed Shadid campaigned on that fact, which he forgot when he filed suit.

One thing I learned from the lawsuit that I did not realize is the MAPS 4 tax is considered a general revenue tax. The city can collect the taxes and do whatever they want with it. There is no commitment of tax dollars to any of the projects. They could spend all $900M on one project if the city wanted to. Another reason to vote no...I was already a no vote.

MAPS will be ruined as a concept if the city council ever takes the money and just does something else entirely with it. It has not happened to any significant degree so far, and I do not think there is any good reason to believe it will happen in the future. The council isn't going to risk the MAPS money faucet like that.

One thing I learned from the lawsuit that I did not realize is the MAPS 4 tax is considered a general revenue tax. The city can collect the taxes and do whatever they want with it. There is no commitment of tax dollars to any of the projects. They could spend all $900M on one project if the city wanted to. Another reason to vote no...I was already a no vote.

It isn't complicated - they do that, then there will be uproar, and MAPS will be finished. They would never do that, so there is no reason to worry about (haven't in the first 3 iterations of MAPS, and won't now). There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vote no, and in my opinion, this isn't one of them.

I think if they actually gave us a few BLC Projects ($0.5B Aquarium, real highway caps, indoor ski area, etc.), this iteration of MAPS would pass with flying colors.

As it stands, I’d imagine it will struggle to pick up the votes.

I don’t live in OKC - has there been any commercials (radio or tv) against this MAPS?

I agree that this MAPS really should have included a few big ticket items. It’s like getting an extra $50 and putting $10 to each credit card account. What’s the bigger impact? $10 to 5 accounts or $50 to 1 account?

http://digital.newsok.com/Olive/ODN/Oklahoman/get/DOK-2019-10-16/image.ashx?kind=block&href=DOK%2F2019%2F10%2F16&id=Pc0011000&ext=.jpg&ts=20191016094203

Top 4 projects (25% of MAPS 4 represents $452 million):

Park enhancements - The MAPS 4 parks package allocates $140 million toward the city’s parks system.

About $63 million is to upgrade every municipal neighborhood and community park outside the central business district. Improvements potentially include bathrooms, playground equipment, shade structures, splashpads, furnishings, trees, paths, activity facilities and signage.

Chesapeake Energy Arena - An allocation of $115 million would fund capital maintenance and provide fan and tenant enhancements to Chesapeake Energy Arena.

Youth centers - A $110 million package would be for the construction of four new youth centers. The centers would include programs such as athletics, arts, family, health and education.

Sidewalks, trails, bike lanes - MAPS 4 would provide $87 million for sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and streetlights.

First, $55 million is for the construction of sidewalks, sidewalk amenities and placemaking, including trees, sustainable infrastructure, landscaping, drainage and public art.

Buses and transit - There is a proposed $87 million in MAPS 4 for transit improvements.

$10 million would improve existing bus stops with lighting at every stop and about 500 new ADA-accessible shelters.

$12 million is for additional buses and signal prioritization to help frequency and reliability of services.

Source: Oklahoman, October 16, 2019

http://digital.newsok.com/Olive/ODN/Oklahoman/get/DOK-2019-10-16/image.ashx?kind=block&href=DOK%2F2019%2F10%2F16&id=Pc0011000&ext=.jpg&ts=20191016094203

Source: Oklahoman, October 16, 2019

Should be like this:

Aquarium - 500MM
Innovation District + Highway Cap - 200MM
Chesapeake - 100MM
Canal Expansion - 100MM
Parks - 50MM
Placemaking - 25MM

Chuck5815

Aquarium - $500 million on an Aquarium; this would be a great center piece & tourist attraction for central Oklahoma; wish something in the neighborhood of $300 million plus could have been designated for a World Class Aquarium.

Personally felt that the return on the investment of a MAP 4 Aquarium would have reaped benefits in the form of an economic impact return just thru tourist dollars & notoriety. .

Should be like this:

Aquarium - 500MM
Innovation District + Highway Cap - 200MM
Chesapeake - 100MM
Canal Expansion - 100MM
Parks - 50MM
Placemaking - 25MM
I'd like to see placemaking/parks combined to be 100MM. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement.

I'd like to see placemaking/parks combined to be 100MM. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement.

That would also get my vote but as it currently stands they will get a Big NO vote from me and mine for the first time in MAPs history.

We can vote at any voting site on December 10, correct?

We can vote at any voting site on December 10, correct?

IIRC you'll need vote at your regular voting place or look up your polling place: https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-4/election-and-voting-information

IIRC you'll need vote at your regular voting place or look up your polling place: https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-4/election-and-voting-information

Thank you

It needs a poll to see how many no and yes votes

This is just a friendly reminder: don’t let yourself or your friends be tricked. Make sure to vote no on this iteration of MAPS.

This is just a friendly reminder: don’t let yourself or your friends be tricked. Make sure to vote no on this iteration of MAPS.

Agree, this is a MAPS way Too Far

Agree, this is a MAPS way Too Far

exactly. David Holt wants the taxpayers to hand $75MM to Bob Funk for Palomar and a Pee-wee Herman, Little League soccer field. Almost 8% of the MAPS 4 Budget to a man who has been a Hundred-Millionaire for some time now.

Funk has more than enough Temping Cash to secure traditional financing for his pet projects.

definitely encourage your friends, and even enemies, to show up early and often to vote no.

exactly. David Holt wants the taxpayers to hand $75MM to Bob Funk for Palomar and a Pee-wee Herman, Little League soccer field. Almost 8% of the MAPS 4 Budget to a man who has been a Hundred-Millionaire for some time now.

Funk has more than enough Temping Cash to secure traditional financing for his pet projects.

definitely encourage your friends, and even enemies, to show up early and often to vote no.

So you are in favor of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Good to know.

exactly. David Holt wants the taxpayers to hand $75MM to Bob Funk for Palomar and a Pee-wee Herman, Little League soccer field. Almost 8% of the MAPS 4 Budget to a man who has been a Hundred-Millionaire for some time now.

Funk has more than enough Temping Cash to secure traditional financing for his pet projects.

definitely encourage your friends, and even enemies, to show up early and often to vote no.

Odds are against us, they scheduled this first week of Dec to get a low turnout, which will greatly favor the yes vote.

MAPS has become what the critics of the original MAPS said that one would be ........... they were wrong for a while, but eventually got there.

So you are in favor of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Good to know.

Good to know that you are comfortable asking the broke single mothers of OKC to subsidize a little league soccer field to benefit one of the city’s richest men. Says a lot about you.

Nobody cared about these poor moms when it comes to a stadium for multiple millionaires over and over again to keep a group of millionaires in town chasing after a basketball.

It’s a “**** Funk” and/or “**** soccer” issue and not a “regressive tax on the poor to benefit the rich is evil” issue, don’t let people lie on here. Every argument against the soccer stadium applies to the Peake, and has applied to the Peake since (before) we got the Thunder. And people have been okay with that, and are still OK with that.

After calming down for five minutes this was harsher than it needed to be, I’m sorry. I just feel like there is a double standard.

It needs a poll to see how many no and yes votes

Emphatic NO from me

After calming down for five minutes this was harsher than it needed to be, I’m sorry. I just feel like there is a double standard.

Well, of course there is, but:

Basketball >> Soccer
Aubrey McClendon > Bob Funk
Fairly clear and reasonable path to an NBA franchise >>> murky and circuitous, outside shot at an MLS franchise

But does the ownership have the money to pay for everything Thunder related in this current MAPS?

Or is it okay to burden the poor single mothers as long as we get a good product out of it?

That’s my main issue with this stance.

But does the ownership have the money to pay for everything Thunder related in this current MAPS?

Or is it okay to burden the poor single mothers as long as we get a good product out of it?

That’s my main issue with this stance.

Yea, I suppose they absolutely could but the stadium is not theirs to maintain.

I’d be more on board with soccer if it were apparent that OKC was on a short list for expansion.

Nobody cared about these poor moms when it comes to a stadium for multiple millionaires over and over again to keep a group of millionaires in town chasing after a basketball.

It’s a “**** Funk” and/or “**** soccer” issue and not a “regressive tax on the poor to benefit the rich is evil” issue, don’t let people lie on here. Every argument against the soccer stadium applies to the Peake, and has applied to the Peake since (before) we got the Thunder. And people have been okay with that, and are still OK with that.

Sales tax increases are considered "regressive" by economists because the poor end up paying a larger portion of their (smaller) income. So regardless of how one feels about soccer, NBA, or NHL stadiums, funding anything by sales tax does place extra burden on the poor.

I’d be more on board with soccer if it were apparent that OKC was on a short list for expansion.

this is me too... it's not that i hate soccer. it's that i hate that we are being lied to that if we do this we WILL most likely get an MLS team, and there is no proof of that.

Has anyone seen any polls about the Maps vote?

this is me too... it's not that i hate soccer. it's that i hate that we are being lied to that if we do this we WILL most likely get an MLS team, and there is no proof of that.

OKC could have been on the list if they had some big money behind them. It's going to take a billionaire or a group of big money folks to get on that list. I haven't heard about anyone stepping up to make a commitment like that.

Has anyone seen any polls about the Maps vote?

It's pretty obvious that Holt is nervous about the vote, as he should be. This slate of projects totally sucks.

It's pretty obvious that Holt is nervous about the vote, as he should be. This slate of projects totally sucks.

What makes it obvious he's nervous?

this is me too... it's not that i hate soccer. it's that i hate that we are being lied to that if we do this we WILL most likely get an MLS team, and there is no proof of that.

Where in the world are you seeing anyone other than internet gossipers saying that we WILL get a MLS team? Who are you calling liars?

Where in the world are you seeing anyone other than internet gossipers saying that we WILL get a MLS team? Who are you calling liars?

all of the statements that it will be expandable for an MLS team... from the proposal itself. it is implying that there is a plan, or that OKC would have a chance... etc. it's adding something onto the proposal to infer that it is a great likelihood that it will happen, and that is why we have to plan for it now, and that just is a false narrative used to try and get people to vote for it who aren't informed about the actual chances for us to get an expansion team

all of the statements that it will be expandable for an MLS team... from the proposal itself. it is implying that there is a plan, or that OKC would have a chance... etc. it's adding something onto the proposal to infer that it is a great likelihood that it will happen, and that is why we have to plan for it now, and that just is a false narrative used to try and get people to vote for it who aren't informed about the actual chances for us to get an expansion team

YOU are the one reading into it that they are claiming it WILL be. You are inferring something that isn't really implied. The truth is there is certainty that there will NOT be a chance for any upper tier team with no acceptable stadium. With a stadium there is at least a POSSIBILITY of upgrading IF we as a city and the private investor(s) meet certain other criteria and show significant interest and commitment. Claiming what you are is doing what you say the pro voices are doing... skewing and interpreting to paint an emotional picture and trying to convince others of the validity of your point of view. If you don't want a barely adequate public soccer/multi use stadium in OKC, that is great. Vote No. Those of us who think the city should act like the complete city it wants to be, and should be, will still vote Yes.

What makes it obvious he's nervous?

Wild assumptions, I suspect.

I have to say, as someone who's not gung ho about the stadium, knowing that it has the potential to be expanded for a MLS team if needed, is still valuable information. I don't see it as an attempt to trick or to deceive people, but rather to pre-silence a potential objection/roadblock/concern.

Honestly, this weird push over the last few pages has done nothing but firm up my likely yes vote. I mean, seriously:


This is just a friendly reminder: don’t let yourself or your friends be tricked. Make sure to vote no on this iteration of MAPS.

Don't get tricked? This almost couldn't be more condescending.

Honestly, this weird push over the last few pages has done nothing but firm up my likely yes vote. I mean, seriously:

Don't get tricked? This almost couldn't be more condescending.

Go for it then, Hoss.

Maps 5 should be really fun: "Uh, hey guys . . . MAPS 4 created hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities AND we poor boyed the endowments, so you really don't have much of a choice here. #voteformaps5"

For reference, the list of projects and how I would vote individually:

PARKS: $140M - Strong yes
YOUTH CENTERS $110M - Yes
SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M - Yes
MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M - Strong Yes
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M - Strong Yes
TRANSIT $87M - Strong Yes
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M - Strong Yes
HOMELESSNESS $50M - Strong Yes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M - Iffy, probably No
ANIMAL SHELTER $38M - Yes
FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M - No
DIVERSION HUB $17M - Strong Yes
INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M - Yes
FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M - Strong Yes
BEAUTIFICATION $30M - Strong Yes
MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M - Undecided

There are certainly a few items that I wouldn't go for individually, but the list of projects I like the look of more than justifies a Yes vote to me. God, the $50M for a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness pretty much gets me there all by itself.

For reference, the list of projects and how I would vote individually:

PARKS: $140M - Strong yes
YOUTH CENTERS $110M - Yes
SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M - Yes
MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M - Strong Yes
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M - Strong Yes
TRANSIT $87M - Strong Yes
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M - Strong Yes
HOMELESSNESS $50M - Strong Yes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M - Iffy, probably No
ANIMAL SHELTER $38M - Yes
FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M - No
DIVERSION HUB $17M - Strong Yes
INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M - Yes
FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M - Strong Yes
BEAUTIFICATION $30M - Strong Yes
MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M - Undecided

There are certainly a few items that I wouldn't go for individually, but the list of projects I like the look of more than justifies a Yes vote to me. God, the $50M for a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness pretty much gets me there all by itself.

This isn't Seattle or San Francisco. We are not a rich city. And it's been proven repeatedly that these types of "investments" do not work. Also, it is not just $50MM, the tax payers will almost certainly be on the hook for an additional $400MM or more. So, like I said, MAPS 5 is going to be awesome.

"MAPS 4 will significantly transform Oklahoma City’s approach to reducing and eventually eliminating homelessness with a $50 million investment in truly affordable housing. This investment, accompanied by wrap-around services from existing providers, will help the city implement a successful “housing first” strategy. The $50 million is expected to leverage more than $400 million in funding from other sources." (emphasis added).

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

For reference, the list of projects and how I would vote individually:

PARKS: $140M - Strong yes
YOUTH CENTERS $110M - Yes
SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M - Yes
MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M - Strong Yes
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M - Strong Yes
TRANSIT $87M - Strong Yes
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M - Strong Yes
HOMELESSNESS $50M - Strong Yes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M - Iffy, probably No
ANIMAL SHELTER $38M - Yes
FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M - No
DIVERSION HUB $17M - Strong Yes
INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M - Yes
FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M - Strong Yes
BEAUTIFICATION $30M - Strong Yes
MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M - Undecided

There are certainly a few items that I wouldn't go for individually, but the list of projects I like the look of more than justifies a Yes vote to me. God, the $50M for a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness pretty much gets me there all by itself.

Why probably no on an arena improvement for an arena owned by the city? Landlords don't make renters pay for upgrades to keep a place modern and up to date, especially when they are not the sole tenant. These upgrades are not just for the Thunder's benefit. The Thunder won't pay for upgrades that they don't really benefit from.

This isn't Seattle or San Francisco. We are not a rich city. And it's been proven repeatedly that these types of "investments" do not work. Also, it is not just $50MM, the tax payers will almost certainly be on the hook for an additional $400MM or more. So, like I said, MAPS 5 is going to be awesome.

"MAPS 4 will significantly transform Oklahoma City’s approach to reducing and eventually eliminating homelessness with a $50 million investment in truly affordable housing. This investment, accompanied by wrap-around services from existing providers, will help the city implement a successful “housing first” strategy. The $50 million is expected to leverage more than $400 million in funding from other sources." (emphasis added).

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

Yes, I read all of that, literally just before I posted my list (I used Pete's info in post #1 (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=45293&p=1087539#post1087539) for my numbers above). First, source your claim that "housing first" doesn't work. I have read the opposite, and I believe what I have read over your unsupplied proof. Second, if we can activate state or federal funds, then good. Bring that money to OKC, it almost certainly already exists and we aren't getting any of it as it stands now.

Also, "we aren't a rich city so we can't" is laughable. It's a non argument, and could have been used for every MAPS from 1 through 3. It would have been a bad argument against them, and that has not changed for 4.

Yes, I read all of that, literally just before I posted my list (I used Pete's info in post #1 (https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=45293&p=1087539#post1087539) for my numbers above). First, source your claim that "housing first" doesn't work. I have read the opposite, and I believe what I have read over your unsupplied proof. Second, if we can activate state or federal funds, then good. Bring that money to OKC, it almost certainly already exists and we aren't getting any of it as it stands now.

Also, "we aren't a rich city so we can't" is laughable. It's a non argument, and could have been used for every MAPS from 1 through 3. It would have been a bad argument against them, and that has not changed for 4.

San Francisco spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on solving homelessness, and the problem has only grown worse. It's laughable that any city, especially one like ours, would claim that it can "end homelessness." That's ****ing impossible, unless we want to throw billions upon billions of dollars at the problem, which I don't imagine we would. So, yes, we're not a rich city is a fine argument. I'm totally fine with MAPS so long as the projects remain true to the Framer's Intent (i.e. no debt, no unfunded liabilities, no social programs, etc.). But if the city wants to throw money into a fire, that money needs to have a dedicated, permanent funding source.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/cost-to-end-san-francisco-bay-area-homelessness-would-be-12point7-billion-report.html

Why probably no on an arena improvement for an arena owned by the city? Landlords don't make renters pay for upgrades to keep a place modern and up to date, especially when they are not the sole tenant. These upgrades are not just for the Thunder's benefit. The Thunder won't pay for upgrades that they don't really benefit from.

Oh, I suppose. It doesn't excite me, but I won't say that I couldn't be convinced it was needed.

San Francisco spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on solving homelessness, and the problem has only grown worse. It's laughable that any city, especially one like ours, would claim that it can "end homelessness." That's ****ing impossible, unless we want to throw billions upon billions of dollars at the problem, which I don't imagine we would.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/cost-to-end-san-francisco-bay-area-homelessness-would-be-12point7-billion-report.html

That would be comparable to OKC if OKC had anything near SF's housing costs. We don't.

Also, I want to point out real quick the cognitive dissonance of saying 1) we aren't a rich city like Seattle or San Francisco and 2) San Francisco housing costs are $450,000 per person which means OKC can't address the homeless problem.

Pick an internally consistent argument.

That would be comparable to OKC if OKC had anything near SF's housing costs. We don't.
Denver, Austin, Portland, Seattle. Etc. I am not saying don’t build housing as I am strong advocate for helping the homeless but throwing money at the problem doesn’t work.

Housing costs are hardly the sole cause of the problem. Drug/alcohol addiction and mental health issues are a huge cause if not bigger than housing costs. Even with the insane housing costs there are tons of places in and around cities like SF, LA, and NYC where you can find rooms for under 1k a month. LA specifically has beds and rooms going for 500 or so around the metro.

Here is a comprehensive map of the homeless populations per state: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/

Overall I support these MAPS initiatives my only beef is I wish it included the Aquarium and I wish transit was taken out with more beautification included. Transit needs to be its own funding sources with a newly formed OKCDOT to leverage more local control(Denver just passed an initiative to form their own DOT: https://denverite.com/2019/11/05/it-looks-like-denver-voters-have-given-the-city-its-own-transportation-department/ ) and METRO issues bonds from property taxes to fund capital projects. I’m also on the fence about the fairgrounds coliseum as I think it should be more bold to compete with Fort Worth and I don’t like the fair board.

That would be comparable to OKC if OKC had anything near SF's housing costs. We don't.

It’s cute that you think homelessness boils down to one issue.

Newsflash: it doesn’t.

PS, LA has allocated billions in less than five years for the homeless and problem has magnified ten fold over what it was prior. Homeless deaths have doubled in 10 years.

Denver, Austin, Portland, Seattle. Etc. I am not saying don’t build housing as I am strong advocate for helping the homeless but throwing money at the problem doesn’t work.

Housing costs are hardly the sole cause of the problem. Drug/alcohol addiction and mental health issues are a huge cause if not bigger than housing costs. Even with the insane housing costs there are tons of places in and around cities like SF, LA, and NYC where you can find rooms for under 1k a month. LA specifically has beds and rooms going for 500 or so around the metro.

Here is a comprehensive map of the homeless populations per state: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/

Overall I support these MAPS initiatives my only beef is I wish it included the Aquarium and I wish transit was taken out with more beautification included. Transit needs to be its own funding sources with a newly formed OKCDOT to leverage more local control(Denver just passed an initiative to form their own DOT: https://denverite.com/2019/11/05/it-looks-like-denver-voters-have-given-the-city-its-own-transportation-department/ ) and METRO issues bonds from property taxes to fund capital projects. I’m also on the fence about the fairgrounds coliseum as I think it should be more bold to compete with Fort Worth and I don’t like the fair board.

What don't you understand about this - if you can put homeless people with problems (alcohol, drug, mental) in a house or apartment first, then they can address those problems much better than if they were out on the street or going from shelter to shelter?

Yeah, some homeless won't work that way, some will fail, no solution is perfect, but this one probably has the highest chance of success.