Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

[KayneMo]

[LocoAko]

Very interesting map. Looks like NW and NE OKC voted strongly in favor while the south side (both SW and SE) had much more tepid support. I wonder if that reflects the historical imbalance of who is perceived to have benefited from past MAPS programs.

[emtefury]

I live in SW OKC and our roads are trash and have seen nothing in regards to MAPS. SW OKC has seen no benefit from MAPs and why the support is lower.

The opinion I have heard in SW OKC is to please fix the roads before spending $1B on new projects. The response from the city PA or MAPS supports is usually we did the MAPS for roads thing. The MAPS for roads may have fixed about 2% of the road issues in SW OKC.

[DoctorTaco]

I can't believe Lake Hefner didn't cast a vote. As a product of a public works project itself you'd think it would be more engaged.

[OKC Guy]

Agree on the roads. My understanding is they have the money but will take time to get to all of them. Don’t quote me on that.

It passed. I’m very disappointed voters don’t get put and vote. Less than 10% of our voting population approved a 1 cent tax that will last 8 years long.

Overall my Maps votes/stances:

Maps1: Yes! Loved it major transformation
Maps2: Yes! Same
Maps3: Yes but did not like SC. Loved all other projects
Maps4: No. But to clarify I like most of the infrastructure items. Like the Soccer stadium and Peake improvements. Like the Fair improvements. Not so much the rest due mainly to future funding. Did not like it being 8 years, wanted to see 2 year project votes to allow for changes as we grow smartly (we don’t need what we did back in 90’s). Would have loved to see Aquarium this would have been a major attraction for tourists.

All on all its fine and I won’t lose sleep. Just because I disagree with some projects doesn’t mean I hate Maps as some seem to think. Its still good for the city although this approval ties our hands until 2030. Think about those next 10 years and all the changes we’ll have. I expect the new hot spot hub to move westward and northward from downtown and it will be interesting how we keep more than one district flush with spending for businesses. Bricktown has always had top billing so the key is growing yet sustaining.

I am more disappointed with only 12 or so percent of our voters getting out to vote. All in all we’ll still improve the city but perhaps we left some meat on the bone.

[Pete]

To compare to the previous MAPS vote:

MAPS3
YES 40,956 (54.30%); NO 34,465 (45.70%)

MAPS4
YES 31,865 (71.71%); NO 12,574 (28.29%)


41% fewer voters this time even though the city's population has grown since the MAPS3 election.

[TheTravellers]

I live in SW OKC and our roads are trash and have seen nothing in regards to MAPS. SW OKC has seen no benefit from MAPs and why the support is lower.

The opinion I have heard in SW OKC is to please fix the roads before spending $1B on new projects. The response from the city PA or MAPS supports is usually we did the MAPS for roads thing. The MAPS for roads may have fixed about 2% of the road issues in SW OKC.

Roads are not fixed by MAPS, never have been, there never was a "MAPS for roads". The money for road-fixing comes from a different source than MAPS and it can't be used for MAPS and MAPS money can't be used for roads, there were/are GO Bonds and Better Streets, Safer City for road-fixing.

[betts]

Two things likely played a part. There weren’t any exciting single issues to stir up voters. No park, no streetcar, no convention center (for people to vote against��). Voters are so accustomed to MAPS always passing that only we worriers and those opposed to taxes voted.

[David]

To compare to the previous MAPS vote:

MAPS3
YES 40,956 (54.30%); NO 34,465 (45.70%)

MAPS4
YES 31,865 (71.71%); NO 12,574 (28.29%)


41% fewer voters this time even though the city's population has grown since the MAPS3 election.

A full 2/3s of the difference in overall votes cast is the no vote collapsing.

[emtefury]

Roads are not fixed by MAPS, never have been, there never was a "MAPS for roads". The money for road-fixing comes from a different source than MAPS and it can't be used for MAPS and MAPS money can't be used for roads, there were/are GO Bonds and Better Streets, Safer City for road-fixing.

I meant the better streets bond not MAPS. The issue remains the same with SW OKC. We pay taxes and don't see (or barely see) any benefit.

[TheTravellers]

I meant the better streets bond not MAPS. The issue remains the same with SW OKC. We pay taxes and don't see (or barely see) any benefit.

I'll agree with that, but it's not just SW OKC, it's the north inner part of the city too. Since we moved from NW 164th/May to NW 36th/May, we've found that the streets around us and where we go (generally in a 4-5 mile radius) aren't kept up nearly as well as they should be, and nowhere near as nice as they are further north.

[Laramie]

MAPS has built its own brand with the help of previous MAPS. The major key was the MAPS for Kids (Metro schools benefited); now some of those voters who supported MAPS for Kids weren't eligible to vote it this election; however, they do remember what it did for metro schools.

It will take a long time to improve OKC Public Schools' academics after years of neglect. Having the basics, like air conditioned buildings helped the classroom environment. The early branding helped get MAPS 3 over the speed bump. Not surprised MAPS 4 passed with 70% approval--with 16 projects, it had something for everyone.

Getting back to Travelers' point: The Better Streets, Safer City Bonds initiative will solve many of the street concerns (SW,SE) by the time OKC rolls out MAPS 5 (2028). In effect, the MAPS brand was the shield that affected the 'No' vote. It will kill the 'No' vote in future elections. Voters have little interest to end MAPS; they like the fact that they have a voice in the capital improvements process.

[GoGators]

I meant the better streets bond not MAPS. The issue remains the same with SW OKC. We pay taxes and don't see (or barely see) any benefit.

What has NW and NE OKC received from MAPS that has been kept from SW OKC? What would you like to see from MAPS that would benefit SW OKC in the future?

[BoulderSooner]

Roads are not fixed by MAPS, never have been, there never was a "MAPS for roads". The money for road-fixing comes from a different source than MAPS and it can't be used for MAPS and MAPS money can't be used for roads, there were/are GO Bonds and Better Streets, Safer City for road-fixing.

this is not true the current "maps tax" (that extended the maps3 tax) that maps 4 continues was for Better Streets safer city which was for 27 months and provided 240 total and 168 for street resurfacing

this was in addition to the 967 mil bond packaged that was voted on and passed the same day that had 491 mil for streets and sidewalks

https://www.okc.gov/residents/better...-tax-extension

https://www.okc.gov/residents/better...s/bond-package

[TheTravellers]

this is not true the current "maps tax" (that extended the maps3 tax) that maps 4 continues was for Better Streets safer city which was for 27 months and provided 240 total and 168 for street resurfacing

this was in addition to the 967 mil bond packaged that was voted on and passed the same day that had 491 mil for streets and sidewalks

https://www.okc.gov/residents/better...-tax-extension

https://www.okc.gov/residents/better...s/bond-package

Yes, we're both right. Better Streets, Safer City continued the MAPS3 tax, but was not called MAPS-anything, so it's not a "MAPS for roads".

[shawnw]

That's marketing though. Really it is maps for roads. Just like the we sometimes call the extension that right-sized the area "maps for hoops" or something to that effect.

[BoulderSooner]

That's marketing though. Really it is maps for roads. Just like the we sometimes call the extension that right-sized the area "maps for hoops" or something to that effect.

yes they even list that arena extension on the maps history page at OKC.gov even though it was not officialy called maps

[OKC Guy]

What has NW and NE OKC received from MAPS that has been kept from SW OKC? What would you like to see from MAPS that would benefit SW OKC in the future?

NW has seen the new Senior Fitness center. Tons and tons of walking and bike trails. SW not nearly as much.

Roads are bad in every district. Hoping they collected enough to make better because that time gap between M3/M4 is all the extra road tax we’re gonna get for 8 years. Unless we add a new tax, but our local tax rate is on the high end with this approval.

[mkjeeves]

NW has seen the new Senior Fitness center. Tons and tons of walking and bike trails. SW not nearly as much.

Roads are bad in every district. Hoping they collected enough to make better because that time gap between M3/M4 is all the extra road tax we’re gonna get for 8 years. Unless we add a new tax, but our local tax rate is on the high end with this approval.

There is a senior fitness center at 4021 south walker.

[GoGators]

NW has seen the new Senior Fitness center. Tons and tons of walking and bike trails. SW not nearly as much.

Roads are bad in every district. Hoping they collected enough to make better because that time gap between M3/M4 is all the extra road tax we’re gonna get for 8 years. Unless we add a new tax, but our local tax rate is on the high end with this approval.

There is a senior wellness center on south walker and one to be built all the way down on SW 134th and Western by 2022. There will be 4 total senior wellness centers from MAPS 3. 2 on the North Side and 2 on the southside.

Maps 3 did pay for the Will Rogers trail that connected lake Hefner to the river on the Northwest side, but it also paid for the Draper trail on the Southeast side.

[shawnw]

Mayor posted the ward support percentage stats on twitter:

Ward 1: 69
Ward 2: 80
Ward 3: 59
Ward 4: 58
Ward 5: 64
Ward 6: 81
Ward 7: 79
Ward 8: 77

[shawnw]

yes they even list that arena extension on the maps history page at OKC.gov even though it was not officialy called maps

right so my point is if that's the case then maps for streets should be there as well, just IMO obvs

[catch22]

Perception is reality with voters. You can list all of the facts you want but it is the perception that the city ignores the south side. This was true for many years, but as of lately not so much.

I grew up on the south side and it always felt like anything "nice" was on the north side. Dining, shopping, recreation, etc. S OKC has never had a fancy restaurant area, Penn Square, or a Lake Hefner. A lot of that has nothing to do with MAPS or the city's spending in general - but for your average person they see those things as an inequality.

How you fix that perception I do not know.

[emtefury]

What has NW and NE OKC received from MAPS that has been kept from SW OKC? What would you like to see from MAPS that would benefit SW OKC in the future?

Nothing. I want tax dollars used for needed infrastructure like repacking/repairing roads and sidewalks.

[BDP]

Roads, maintenance, and other infrastructure are (mostly) paid for the by GO Bonds which are serviced by property taxes, right?. So, you could say MAPS helps fund the road projects if the projects increase property values. It seems hard to say that a vote against capital improvements, which typically increase property values, is an effective protest vote to indirectly support more road maintenance.

Of course, increased property values can really only be attributed to MAPS projects if those projects in turn increase the demand for (or, I guess, scarcity of) property. Then, if those values do go up, you have to actually collect on those increases. However, it seems a lot of the districts where the strongest correlation between MAPS projects and increased property values can be made, due to proximity, are also where the TIF districts are concentrated.

So, basically, IF the MAPS projects have increased property values, we've also kicked a (significant?) chunk of that additional property tax revenue from those increases down the road a few decades.

But the Go Bond projects spend on par what MAPS does, in general (someone can check my math there. The amounts are similar, but the frequency may not be). At the end of the day, when talking about infrastructure, we have a lot of miles to cover, a lot of which is relatively not very dense. I think someone would have to look at traffic counts and infrastructure usage to really determine if one side of the city is getting a disproportionate amount of spending for infrastructure (anybody got that?).

Anecdotally, to me anyway, it seems our roads generally just don't hold up, even when we do throw money at them. I could list all the reasons I've heard over the years that have been floated as to why this is, but I've never heard of a good definitive answer or solution to it.

In any event, it seems odd to pit this all as MAPS vs. Roads. It seems way too interconnected to be reduced to a rudimentary binary proposition to me. Maybe it should be more something like " I want better roads, so I'm against MAPS, UNLESS they end TIF that forgoes any property tax increase created by MAPS projects, since that's where more money for the roads would come from..."

I'm sure someone can shoot holes in that, but thanks for letting me muddy the waters for a bit...