MAPS Opposition Fliers

[Chance23]

Urban Pioneer has an excellent exposition regarding the transit system, and why the plan is to start with a streetcar on the mass transit threat, that I would suggest you read. I think many of us want to see much better mass transit in Oklahoma City, but we have to have a realistic understanding of what is feasible, what the costs are, what a logical time frame is, and how monies can be obtained that don't necessarily have to come from sales taxes.

I never spoke against the mass-transit system, so this statement is irrelevant.

I'm not a big fan of the state fair plans, because I don't go to the state fair. But, I accept that with the MAPS concept, not everything in the proposal excites every voter. As far as sidewalks go, people keep forgetting about the 12/07 bond issue which passed and which provides money for miles and miles of new sidewalks. MAPS will too, so sidewalks have actually been addressed. That December bond issue, which also will provide a great deal of money for road improvement throughout the metro, seems to have been missed by almost everyone, as people keep bringing up sidewalks and roads in their anti-MAPS arguments.

Because people see that nothing is being done, but the city is jumping into something huge that's just for downtown. They can give them lip-service, but progress has stalled. What are the odds that MAPS projects won't face the same slowdown if it passes?

Is my saying I want a downtown park any different than you saying you don't? It's a personal opinion. That's what a forum is: a place where people can discuss their differing opinions. There's almost nothing being said here that's truth completely free of interpretation, and there are almost always multiple sides to any argument. I happen to see development of the core of a city as important, especially in one with a core that has been as neglected for years as ours has. Other people think differently, clearly. Some people consider cities like Boston ideal, others like big sprawling cities like Dallas. There's no right or wrong here.

I get that you don't really want to actually debate anything, and would rather cheer lead. That's fine, but if that's the case don't make other people's arguments for them. There's no point in you even responding if it's not to things that have actually been said. You're not actually answering any questions, even ones that should be easy to answer if they are true (like when you said there were MAPS rebates for low income families. That's simply a matter of providing an actual source). It's not all just differing opinions, it's asking questions and actually participating in critical thought.

I never said a downtown park is a bad thing (in fact, if you'll actually read the post you'll see that much), I questioned whether or not the value truly is what people are claiming and whether it's more valuable to have a large park there than parks in other areas of the city that don't have parks. The facts I've stated were that, in all major cities, large parks were all located elsewhere and that the highest concentration of parks is already close to the core of the city, while citizens on the outskirts (who are being asked to pay for it)

Second, I didn't say development for downtown was a bad thing. I'm asking what a person who doesn't live or work there in this city has to gain by it. That's not expressing an opinion, it's asking a question. It's a large city, everyone is paying for it