Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

[chuck5815]

So why make an inflammatory statement you don’t know anything about? Your entire post was about how bad and unfair it was that the city was using tax dollars to fund the campaign. Why do you feel the need to make things up to argue your side? If you don’t want maps to pass, make a factual argument and if it’s good enough it will resonate. This is the problem with politics on all levels. People play fast and loose with basic facts in order to try make a point.

you would agree, though, that the city is playing fast and loose with a number of facts to get this package passed?

[OKC Guy]

So why make an inflammatory statement you don’t know anything about? Your entire post was about how bad and unfair it was that the city was using tax dollars to fund the campaign.

Why do you feel the need to make things up to argue your side? If you don’t want maps to pass, make a factual argument and if it’s good enough it will resonate. This is the problem with politics on all levels. People play fast and loose with basic facts in order to try make a point.

Dude, relax lol.

Originally asked it as a question saying “if” they use tax money to sell it they need to give equal money to opponents.

Is this posting graded? Its discussion right? Discussers said it was not taxes and I corrected. Do you want my first born too what more can I say it was a question based on assumption.

But dollars drive the flyers. What is your take on that?

To me it matters who is paying for the votes. As a citizen I want what is best for city. Dollar donors want what is best for their pocket book. I don’t blame them but their interest is not the same as mine they are in it for profit.

So which of my kids do I need to sacrifice lol

[Rover]

Dude, relax lol.

Originally asked it as a question saying “if” they use tax money to sell it they need to give equal money to opponents.

I thought it was the role of city leadership to propose and advocate for things they believe will benefit the city. If you don't like the vision or the path of what they are proposing, vote them out. Go vote no if you must, but don't ignore reality. We voted them in to champion things to make our city better. Now, you have a chance to respond, so go do it.

[jedicurt]

I thought it was the role of city leadership to propose and advocate for things they believe will benefit the city. If you don't like the vision or the path of what they are proposing, vote them out. Go vote no if you must, but don't ignore reality. We voted them in to champion things to make our city better. Now, you have a chance to respond, so go do it.

wait... so you are telling me that a city is going to try and sway support for what it thinks is the right course of action? how rude of them!!!

[OKC Guy]

Saw this with picture of article blurb at tweet link

Paul Monies
@pmonies
·
Dec 9
This is the first MAPS campaign where the funding doesn’t have to be disclosed. Law was changed in 2014 to make local ballot campaigns exempt from campaign finance reporting. #MAPS4 #OKC #FOI #transparency

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmonies/s...39215375360002

[David]

Dude, relax lol.

Originally asked it as a question saying “if” they use tax money to sell it they need to give equal money to opponents.

Is this posting graded? Its discussion right? Discussers said it was not taxes and I corrected. Do you want my first born too what more can I say it was a question based on assumption.

You know we can go back and read your previous posts, right? Hell, I'll quote them for convenience.

Ditto. If it was such a good line item then it would sell itself. They are spending a ton of our tax money on this sales pitch trying to drum up votes. I think they should be required to give the opposition an equal amount of our tax money to campaign against it.

Why are they allowed to spend tax dollars to lobby for a new tax? And all these flyers cost some decent money. Should be required to give an equal amount to opposition to keep it fair. Who authorizes these expenditures and with other city agencies lacking budgets to boot.

You did not start out by asking whether or not the city was spending tax dollars on the campaign as a question.

[GoGators]

Saw this with picture of article blurb at tweet link

Paul Monies
@pmonies
·
Dec 9
This is the first MAPS campaign where the funding doesn’t have to be disclosed. Law was changed in 2014 to make local ballot campaigns exempt from campaign finance reporting. #MAPS4 #OKC #FOI #transparency

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmonies/s...39215375360002

The state legislature passed this law in 2014. This wasn’t some law OKC passed to specifically hide MAPs contributions. I agree this was a dumb law change but our state legislature is great at passing dumb laws.

[OKC Guy]

You know we can go back and read your previous posts, right? Hell, I'll quote them for convenience.

You did not start out by asking whether or not the city was spending tax dollars on the campaign as a question.

Dude, which of my kids do you want? Both?

Time to move on from this obsession. I corrected my statement so unless you keep hashing this out its resolved. Life is too short to stress over it. I was wrong. Now, which kid do I need to give up?

[GoGators]

you would agree, though, that the city is playing fast and loose with a number of facts to get this package passed?

Chuck, to be completely honest I haven’t heard of much coming from city hall at all. I don’t watch cable or listen to commercial OTA radio so I haven’t come across a single ad besides a bunch of love your okc yard signs. So I really do not know what has been said besides reading the breakdown description of projects on the website and this thread.

I assume you may be talking about the “without rasing taxes” line which I agree is misleading. I guess it’s technically true and disingenuous at the same time. I can see your point on that. Although it’s not just completely making stuff up like claiming tax payer money is used on campaign signs. I expect these grey areas to be spun in the direction of whoever is using the information which is fair game imo.

There may be some other questionable statements or even some flat out lies but I just admittedly haven’t been paying enough attention to know what has been coming from the city.

[David]

Dude, which of my kids do you want? Both?

Time to move on from this obsession. I corrected my statement so unless you keep hashing this out its resolved. Life is too short to stress over it. I was wrong. Now, which kid do I need to give up?

Now you are just sore you got publicly caught in a lie.

[shawnw]

Saw this with picture of article blurb at tweet link

Paul Monies
@pmonies
·
Dec 9
This is the first MAPS campaign where the funding doesn’t have to be disclosed. Law was changed in 2014 to make local ballot campaigns exempt from campaign finance reporting. #MAPS4 #OKC #FOI #transparency

https://mobile.twitter.com/pmonies/s...39215375360002

To be clear, the law was changed by the state, not by the city.

[dankrutka]

The discussion (page 18) on whether public officials should "hide" tweets from potential constituents is interesting. There have been first amendment appeals for elected officials blocking constituents. Of course, "hiding" tweets that can be viewed with a simple click probably doesn't qualify. So, this more likely falls into the spirit, not law, of free speech. On the one hand, politicians should probably avoid censoring debate by "hiding" comments on Twitter or even deleting comments on Instagram. On the other hand, one way nefarious actors (see Russians working at the Internet Research Agency) and those who mimic their strategies (see 2017 Alabama Senate election) try to harm democracy is simply to amplify partisan/ideological/identity fractures in society... or simply exhaust people by making dumb arguments. These are real dilemmas and it's interesting to see them pop up in local elections.

[Pete]

^

It's a big deal for the first time in OKC because Mayor Holt is all over social media.

I personally feel that if you put yourself out there in such an obvious way on these platforms, you shouldn't censor or squelch people who respond. I almost never do that on OKCTalk social media, and we have a pretty huge following (about 80,000 total now, and climbing rapidly).

[Urban Pioneer]

^
I personally feel that if you put yourself out there in such an obvious way on these platforms, you shouldn't censor or squelch people who respond.

And he has.... Mayor Holt is the first mayor or city councillor to embrace social media to this degree.

I don't know and did not observe what was "hidden" but I often delete personal insults, innuendo being masqueraded as facts, and obscenities on the streetcar Facebook page.

The law regarding disclosure with public commentary only applies to public meetings publicly posted on the City of OKC calendar.

[Urban Pioneer]

It is amazing at how many trolls he responds to.

[GoGators]

I’ve never understood why public figures or corporations concern themselves with what is said in the comments sections. No sane person in their right mind is heading to the comments section of a post to form an opinion on anything. Hiding some guys comments saying MAPS is funding Jade Helm will do nothing to help your cause but it will fuel the opposition’s fires.

[Pete]

I’ve never understood why public figures or corporations concern themselves with what is said in the comments sections. No sane person in their right mind is heading to the comments section of a post to form an opinion on anything. Hiding some guys comments saying MAPS is funding Jade Helm will do nothing to help your cause but it will fuel the opposition’s fires.

It's why I don't do anything about this sort of thing on OKCTalk social posts. It's not that I don't think people read the comments, it's that I think most can figure out what is silly and what isn't. Same as this site. If someone is being ridiculous, then people here will call them on it. I would rather err toward being hands-off vs. playing God over what is and isn't acceptable and it has worked pretty darn well.

The minute you start wading into this you are censoring and that is a very tricky business.

[chuck5815]

It is amazing at how many trolls he responds to.

Yep. Cupcakes come in many different flavors. Some happen to be basketball savants . . . while others are Big League City mayors.

[SoonersFan12]

When are we supposed to find out the results on the voting?

[Pete]

When are we supposed to find out the results on the voting?

When the polls close at 7PM the OK Election board will start posting results on-line.

Usually takes a couple of hours to know how things are going.

https://results.okelections.us/OKER/?elecDate=20191210

[dankrutka]

It's why I don't do anything about this sort of thing on OKCTalk social posts. It's not that I don't think people read the comments, it's that I think most can figure out what is silly and what isn't. Same as this site. If someone is being ridiculous, then people here will call them on it. I would rather err toward being hands-off vs. playing God over what is and isn't acceptable and it has worked pretty darn well.

The minute you start wading into this you are censoring and that is a very tricky business.

It is very, very tricky. For example, one problem is that you can't equate social media speech to other forms of speech because algorithms amplify messages. I won't go into the ways that dishonest and nefarious actors game social media algorithms and comment to distort and destroy democracy because that's a really long post. In short, the social media companies have taken a hands-off approach and it's been an absolute disaster. I will say that I think the "hide" feature on Twitter is probably a good addition. That's really not censorship, it's just denying amplification of a message. Free speech is not free reach.

To my knowledge, OKCTalk neither has had nefarious actors nor amplified messages like social media so Pete's approach is probably wise. I just don't think Twitter is the same as OKCTalk... nor is the OKCTalk Twitter account the same as that of a political figure.

Anyway, there's a lot of debate currently about amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which basically allows sites/platforms broad immunity, if you're interested in learning more. Tricky stuff without easy answers.

[SoonersFan12]

Pete-Thank you for the link, I appreciate it

[SoonersFan12]

Any guesses if it will pass or fail? I think it will pass

[Pete]

To my knowledge, OKCTalk neither has had nefarious actors nor amplified messages like social media so Pete's approach is probably wise. I just don't think Twitter is the same as OKCTalk... nor is the OKCTalk Twitter account the same as that of a political figure.

No doubt. But when a political figure aggressively uses social media -- and I'm talking about Holt or a city council member, not a world leader -- then they are choosing to put themselves out there and there are consequences to that, not the least of which are lots of people responding in a way that they might not like. And they are using their elected position to get people to read what they have to say. They all use their title; they aren't posting as anonymous people.

You can't have it both ways. There are plenty of one-way communication methods. If you actively chose to use social media to promote causes and to amplify your opinions, then it is going to be used against you. And frankly, I think the large majority of hiding, and deleting and blocking is done to squelch opposing views, and that feels very wrong to me.

Really, why should you care if someone makes misstatements or even vulgarity? That is just like, their opinion man and they are entitled to it. The minute you stand in judgment of a statement being 'incorrect' or 'out of line' you are injecting your own judgment and censorship and who are you to make that final determination?

If you are a public official, you already have a ton of ways of getting your message out. If you wade into social media, IMO you are voluntarily inviting two-way communication and therefore, you should let that flow. Especially because when opposing views are curtailed, readers of the posts generally have no idea that is happening. The comments then can become a strong misrepresentation of how others feel about an issue.

My approach has always been to post on social media but not respond to any comments. I don't even read them. And BTW, the Gazette gets into some pretty prickly social and political issues and we use this same policy/approach.

[Pete]

BTW, I feel the same way about journalists on social media or that hold podcasts and chats.

They use their position to get attention but then often heavily censor responses and questions. If you don't like it, you already have a big, one-way communication platform. When you *choose* to invite others into the conversation, I think it's highly unethical to censor them.

Again, this seems very wrong to me and I can provide many examples of local media members using what is supposed to be bilateral communication in a very disingenuous way. And many never know because they have no idea or what is being edited or deleted.