Ideas 4 MAPS

[shawnw]

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

[soonerguru]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[OKCRT]

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.

[jonny d]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[catch22]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[Ross MacLochness]

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.

Was MAPS for Kids a waste of the MAPS brand?? That was a pretty huge departure from MAPS 1.

[shawnw]

some of that work was for naught because greatness i guess, so, perhaps, yes in the long run

[jonny d]

Also amazing that a board in OKC, which represents a vast overwhelming minority, thinks that because a few posters are not in favor of many of the projects means the whole voting populace is against them. Most I know want the stadium, and will vote yes if it is on the ballot. Others love the animal shelter, and will vote yes regardless of it. Others want progress, no matter what it may be, and will vote yes regardless.

[catch22]

Was MAPS for Kids a waste of the MAPS brand?? That was a pretty huge departure from MAPS 1.

It was a clear, cut and dry city-wide need. I don’t think you’ll see the same passion for animal shelters and mental health facilities, even though I agree we have a need for them.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but spending money because it is available does not seem a prudent use of the MAPS brand. The fact that there’s no vision seems problematic, just a bunch of groups lobbying for their cause to be one of those chosen.

[Urban Pioneer]

There is understandably lots of room for broad opinion on this if you follow these matters closely as many posters do. I have been read in on some of the more detailed polling data and might be privileged with broader perspectives as a result. The polling demonstrates a very clear path forward under the current political climate with a (needs based) agenda. A few things of note, the new MAPS 3 Park will be opening immediately before the vote. The brand itself should be further boosted by that big public event entering the winter. The new convention center and other senior wellness centers will open after the tax begins its next run.

Another big difference between this MAPS and previous MAPS is that you have activists and community organizers aggressively promoting their individual causes. It’s currently not the big, broad, heavy handed campaigning from the Chamber yet although that is forthcoming as well.

This MAPS will pass easily. Where I personally have concerns is whether the quality of the proposals meets “the MAPS standard”. I am deeply concerned about the rumblings surrounding short changing budgets. We shouldn’t be proposing only doing half of the needed bus shelters or trying to simply renovate the 50yo animal shelter. If these “needs based” projects are meet the MAPS transformational standards already set, then they need to be far reaching and ground up. Renovations and halvsies are half baked and terrible precedents to set within the brand.

[OKC Guy]

I think its fair to say the Prior MAPS had advantage of one sided branding. Social media was a shell of itself then. Now those against have better methods to get their word out versus prior MAPS.

And why does it need to be 10 years? I continue to struggle why its not redone as a shorter term. I prefer 2-3 year MAPS thus allowing us to adapt to changing need/s.

And as mentioned there is no big need like prior MAPS. So everyone is dreaming up wants and there is a big difference. Because if no concensus it would be prudent to not push it in any ballet this year.

[Urban Pioneer]

The whole reason to have public meetings is to help leaders develop consensus.

[okccowan]

I'll vote yes on MAPS4 regardless, but I'm extremely bummed we couldn't even get a streetcar extension on the list of items to talk about.

[d-usa]

I can see the logic in wanting to avoid a “we Just build it, why are they asking for money for rail” argument. More so with an upcoming “money for (regional) rail” vote in the near future.

[Urban Pioneer]

I would encourage anyone with an interest in public transportation and streetcar to come to the upcoming July 29th meeting. We are first on the agenda at 9 am. There will be proposals for streetcar extensions, bus stops, automatic signal priority for EMBARK buses, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposals. Proposed investments range from $35 million to $140 million.

[onthestrip]

Im not sure how I feel about the $80 million request for affordable housing. First, that is a big chunk of the MAPS money. Secondly, we are one of the lowest cost of living cities in the country. I know theres always a need for affordable housing but do we have THAT big of a need right now for affordable housing? I could understand something like $20-25 million request but 80 seems rather large.

ALso, I agree with others that 10 year MAPS seems too long. It makes MAPS less flexible and creates the issue of groups and special interest just throwing their ideas into the mix just because its so big and long. I like 5 years or so. That way when in 4-5 years something new or needed pops up, we can address it. Cant do that in when MAPS is 10 years long.

[HOT ROD]

the only thing that should be half baked is the fairgrounds arena; they should be able to foot all of that bill, Maps should only pay for half of it MAX.

I do agree with UP with the quality of these projects though. One other thing I don't really understand is the "need" for everything to have an endowment. We're saying spend $20M in MAPS to investment to get $800K in annual mtc? I know this works for business, but plopping down $20M (for basically each project) just seems ridiculous when the city SHOULD just raise the tax for parks (for example). Assuming the 4% Annual Return is accurate and true; it would take 25 years for the Endowment to pay for itself. That seems to be a long time while somebody is getting a huge injection of money in the short term.

Long term, no doubt Endowments make sense given after the $25 year run the fund pays intro perpetuity. But should EVERY park project have an endowment? I think not. We should consider those who wouldn't normally have city/park staff running them (like the mental health thing, the animal shelter, zoo); yes these should have endowments since the city is gifting the building to agencies to run. But if the city will still run projects then they should increase funding for the city staff via taxes if need be. I really also wish the state could change property tax for cities and I presume this is upcoming (for the RTD), but think of the 25 years we're missing for endowing everything putting MAPS money upfront.

It is something to think about since this does somewhat inflate most projects.

[BoulderSooner]

the only thing that should be half baked is the fairgrounds arena; they should be able to foot all of that bill, Maps should only pay for half of it MAX.

I do agree with UP with the quality of these projects though. One other thing I don't really understand is the "need" for everything to have an endowment. We're saying spend $20M in MAPS to investment to get $800K in annual mtc? I know this works for business, but plopping down $20M (for basically each project) just seems ridiculous when the city SHOULD just raise the tax for parks (for example). Assuming the 4% Annual Return is accurate and true; it would take 25 years for the Endowment to pay for itself. That seems to be a long time while somebody is getting a huge injection of money in the short term.

Long term, no doubt Endowments make sense given after the $25 year run the fund pays intro perpetuity. But should EVERY park project have an endowment? I think not. We should consider those who wouldn't normally have city/park staff running them (like the mental health thing, the animal shelter, zoo); yes these should have endowments since the city is gifting the building to agencies to run. But if the city will still run projects then they should increase funding for the city staff via taxes if need be. I really also wish the state could change property tax for cities and I presume this is upcoming (for the RTD), but think of the 25 years we're missing for endowing everything putting MAPS money upfront.

It is something to think about since this does somewhat inflate most projects.

property tax changes are not even on the state radar .... the RTD would be another sales tax raise

[jonny d]

property tax changes are not even on the state radar .... the RTD would be another sales tax raise

But property tax changes should be on the radar. Or income tax raises.

[Laramie]

Understand the logic behind a short-term MAPS as well as the logic of the long-term initiatives as what we've been successful in doing in the past.

The MAPS initiative as we did with MAPS 3 for $777 million with the placeholders projects. The city has never done a 'bait & switch.'

Again, let me say this; Steve Lackmeyer, web user reply addressed this in his last chat with what has been the true soul of MAPS.

Guest said:
I read the article this morning about MAPS 4 proposals. I absolutely, 100%, will not vote for MAPS 4 if they have a stadium or an arena at the fairgrounds included. The Energy owners are very wealthy and I am not going to fund a stadium they can pay for themselves.They can sell their giant houses if they want to build a stadium. And I am not going to support a totally unresponsive fair board, either. In fact, I will campaign against another MAPS in a grassroots movement if either of these two projects are in it. Thanks for letting me vent.

Web User replied:
That seems short-sighted if you value the other proposals like Palomar, working with mental health issues, sidewalks, parks, trails, public transit, or the other proposals.

MAPS was started as a way to overcome territorial interests. But can you make your case to the city council that you do not want the fairgrounds arena or the soccer stadium?
You bet.
As an aside, over the next few weeks I will be hosting guests advocating for the various proposed MAPS 4 projects. They will include Bob Funk Jr. who is hoping to get the stadium on the list.