MAPS Public Process Needs Correction

[jbrown84]

They haven't even told us why they chose certain projects. I don't understand why MAPS3 should include anything for the fair grounds. I think a hotel tax should be presented for the fair grounds.

And the senior citizen aquatics center came out of nowhere too.

There are so many holes that need to be filled before people can vote. That is a lot of money for the city to spend.

The list of projects comes from the things requested by citizens on the Maps3 website. The top 10 or 15 were listed in the initial press release, and they all pretty much were covered either by MAPS 3 or the last bond issue.

There is already a hotel tax dedicated to the fair, but there's not enough to do this expo center at this time.

It seems that if a group in OKC wanted something on the ballot they just pushed the mayor and city council to put it on there. I think the Chamber pushed for the convention center and the fair people pushed for their expo center. Didn't we just spend money to upgrade the fairgrounds?

Every project has a special interest group that pushed it. A mostly grassroots citizens group pushed the streetcar. The Chamber (as the promoter of city businesses) pushed the convention center. The fair board pushed their expo center. The Bricktown Association pushed a canal extension that they didn't get. All the projects either benefit the public as things we can directly enjoy, or they benefit us more indirectly by supporting our businesses and expanding tourism, which leads to higher sales tax revenues and more jobs. Some do both.

[Larry OKC]

How hard would it be for the chamber and/or the city to simply list upcoming meetings on their respective websites, where held, who's speaking, date and time.

Is that so difficult?

Remember back in the March 4 campaign ... Roy Williams was out and about in well publicized meetings and speaking engagements, and he withstood the heat of those present who were anti-March 4-vote just fine.

The city and the chambers' (compound possessive) posture gives an appearance that they are fearful of possible confrontational encounters. Maybe they are.

Couldn't agree more...and with the last part, maybe they are considering the "townhall" rancor that happened over the summer (on the national level)...but if they can't stand the heat......

[bdhumphreys]

Wanted to update this thread with my most recent posts on the subject. Yesterday, I posted this quote on my blog:

MAPS 3 will be great for Oklahoma City. But some things are more important than public improvements, especially maintaining an open and honest government. If it takes the disintegration of the latter, in order to obtain the former, then the city overall is taking a step backwards.

I am speaking specifically about the public process and I stand by the quote. After thinking it over some more today, I have decided there is no use continuing to harp on this, so I just posted the following:

Hopefully I have made my point on the MAPS 3 public process to date. It is clear that what we have witnessed so far cannot possibly represent our City’s best effort at a inclusive process. That said, the past is the past. There is nothing that can be done before the December 8th MAPS 3 vote to rectify the situation – including more blogging on the topic.

Instead, I am looking forward. Looking forward to a favorable result for MAPS 3 at the polls on December 8th. Looking forward to the post-vote public meetings, and planning charettes, and lively discussions (and maybe even an open competition) focused on finding the best locations for the projects and making sure the best ideas are implemented. If such a process takes place in the future, then we can all find the grace to forget what has taken place thus far and channel our energy into ensuring the projects are a success.

I have been told by multiple persons over the past few days, that my public objections to the MAPS 3 public process will hurt my chances of finding a job in Oklahoma City. Well, if that is the case, it is most unfortunate. Because more than anything, I am looking forward to returning to Oklahoma City and contributing my energy and ideas in an effort to make it a better place to live. That was the dream two years ago when I left to attend graduate school and it remains the dream today.

Appreciate the discussion and look forward to working together to ensure the MAPS 3 projects are well planned and successfully implemented!

[betts]

Appreciate the discussion and look forward to working together to ensure the MAPS 3 projects are well planned and successfully implemented!

Amen. I think efforts need to be directed towards passing MAPS, but, if that happens, the public should not sit idly by and assume the best. Although the vagueness of the language can be perceived as a disadvantage, and I understand peoples' concerns, it can conversely allow for greater public participation by adding decision making to the ongoing process.

[Doug Loudenback]

Well, I don't think that our city is well served by ignoring issues that are involved RIGHT NOW and which could be as quickly changed. So, I'll keep on keepin' on all the while favoring MAPS 3.

When the time comes that I perceive that there is nothing to be gained by honest and thorough journalism and that it is really better to pretend that it doesn't matter because of a greater good, when that time comes ... when that time comes ... hey, that time will not ever come.

News reporting could be changed RIGHT NOW. I understand that someone from the Chamber made a presentation at the Downtown Rotary Club last night, though I may be mistaken. I've looked for news about the event (yesterday to see if it was noticed anywhere publicly, today to see if any reports appear). Couldn't find anything. Maybe I misunderstood about the presentation.

[bdhumphreys]

Well, I don't think that our city is well served by ignoring issues that are involved RIGHT NOW and which could be as quickly changed. So, I'll keep on keepin' on all the while favoring MAPS 3.

When the time comes that I perceive that there is nothing to be gained by honest and thorough journalism and that it is really better to pretend that it doesn't matter because of a greater good, when that time comes ... when that time comes ... hey, that time will not ever come.

News reporting could be changed RIGHT NOW. I understand that someone from the Chamber made a presentation at the Downtown Rotary Club last night, though I may be mistaken. I've looked for news about the event (yesterday to see if it was noticed anywhere publicly, today to see if any reports appear). Couldn't find anything. Maybe I misunderstood about the presentation.

Doug - I agree. I didn't mean my "no blogging" statement to be a blanket ban on all bloggers covering all aspects of MAPS 3. I am really glad you have stepped up to offer facts and information that is unfortunately not available anywhere else. Please continue to do so! I only meant to say that on this particular aspect, I feel I have made my point.

By the way, you are right about the Bricktown Rotary event. I think the only definitive announcement came one hour and fifteen minutes before the event in a comment on my blog by Casey Cornett. I didn't see it show up anywhere else and unfortunately, while the Bricktown Rotary site did show that Mayor Cornett would be speaking, it did not indicate that MAPS 3 would be discussed. Thus, any web searches for a MAPS 3 event would come up empty.

By the way, I hear the event was fairly typical. Surprisingly, even though Bricktown has a tremendous amount to lose if the existing Core to Shore plan is implemented wholesale, there apparently was not a single difficult questions asked during the Q&A.

[metro]

RAM ROD IT CHAMBER!!! Secret meetings and all.

That won't help it pass though...

The same goes for your police/fire unions tactics in opposing MAPS 3!

[metro]

There's been enough information provided for me to consider how I'm going to vote on the proposition.

There are 3 big projects and 5 smaller ones. The plans detailed have been about what I'd expect at this stage of the game which is just a little more than preliminary. The ballot has been defined and all I have to decide is if I want to vote for a one cent sales tax.

City government seems to have pretty much been trustworthy with the previous projects based on what little I know.

I am sympathetic to many of those who oppose but those arguments seem insufficient to persuade me to vote no.

Most everyone I know who can and will vote have made up their mind.

I suppose I could spend a lot more time worrying about details but honestly I see little benefit to it.

Well said. I definitely don't agree with the process. But sufficient evidence doesn't exist to where they are going to "screw us". These people's and future city officials political careers would be DOA if they decided to make major changes. Hopefully they will learn their lesson on any future proposals, but I'm not going to cry over details and hold up progress in this City either.

Just to be clear, I am not, nor have I ever opposed MAPS 3 or attempted to persuade anyone to vote no.

That said, I strongly object to the public process that has, or rather hasn't, been implemented. We were lied to about what meetings would take place over the summer. Opportunities for engagement have remained extremely limited throughout the past two months. And, even behind the scenes, people are being hushed and intimidated out of sharing ideas.

MAPS 3 will be great for Oklahoma City. But some things are more important than public improvements, especially maintaining an open and honest government. If it takes the disintegration of the latter, in order to obtain the former, then the city overall is taking a step backwards.

Blair, I love ya man and agree with your principles. Perhaps you can convince your father, our former Mayor to speak out publically about this honesty and open government issue since he has a lot of clout in this City. I imagine that would go a long way in how our citizens and leaders think.

I totally agree with BHumphrey. It seems that if a group in OKC wanted something on the ballot they just pushed the mayor and city council to put it on there. I think the Chamber pushed for the convention center and the fair people pushed for their expo center. I am for everything on the ballot except these two. I think if we want these then they should be in a hotel tax not a sales tax. These are deal breakers for me. The convention center is too expensive! And I don't think that any fair ground improvements should be on a MAPS ballot. Didn't we just spend money to upgrade the fairgrounds?

It was also citizens, but yes special interest groups had a say so, and frankly, without them a MAPS 3 wouldn't pass. Everyone needs their slice of pie as most items wouldn't pass on their own, the same was said with all previous MAPS programs. We need a new and larger convention center, no matter how unpopular. Look at the numbers compared to peer and even smaller cities. Our numbers are pathetic. I think there is more than sufficient evidence of why we need a new convention center.

I'm not lasomeday, but having to pay $35 to learn more about MAPS 3 explains more than I need to know regarding the process. Maybe I should have said all I need to know

There have been and will be free places to learn and discuss about MAPS 3. Oklahoman has provided info on several events.

Agreed that the process could be a lot better. I have been informed that any civic group, neighborhood association, etc can invite the MAPS 3 coalition to speak at their event/meeting/gathering. My understanding is that many neighborhoods and non-profit groups have already hosted some of these meetings.

I don't know about every organization. But I'm sure they'd be willing to send some representative to speak to your group. The council members, chamber, and others have been meeting with HOA's and other groups for a month or so now. Definitely ask for a meeting if you can set one up.

[Doug Loudenback]

Metro, I hadn't thought to add anything further in this thread, but you said,

There have been and will be free places to learn and discuss about MAPS 3. Oklahoman has provided info on several events.

Aside from the Oklahoman's after the fact reporting on the 10/21 Chamber lunch, and in which modest reporting it mentioned the location of the next 2 "Breaking Through" luncheons, I'd be very appreciative of any other meetings -- "several events" -- which have been mentioned in the Oklahoman before they occurred ... even after they occurred. I'm honestly not aware of any.

Can you advise?

[Doug Loudenback]

One more thing:

A lot of this could be cleared up nicely if the Mayor and David Thompson would simply conduct a true public press conference and take questions from real reporters.

What a concept!

Even if the Oklahoman might not send any of its established reporters (but it might ... how would it look if it did not do so), I'm sure that the Gazette and Journal Record, as well as News9, etc., would be more than glad to attend and tell whatever stories there might be to tell.

[bdhumphreys]

Metro, I hadn't thought to add anything further in this thread, but you said,


Aside from the Oklahoman's after the fact reporting on the 10/21 Chamber lunch, and in which modest reporting it mentioned the location of the next 2 "Breaking Through" luncheons, I'd be very appreciative of any other meetings -- "several events" -- which have been mentioned in the Oklahoman before they occurred ... even after they occurred. I'm honestly not aware of any.

Can you advise?

I agree with Doug on this one. Just to double check, I went through the first five pages of Google results with the search term: "maps 3" and "public meeting"...I even tried again with: "maps3" and "public meeting" just to be certain.

So far, all I have found are unrelated sites and comments from myself, Doug, and others asking "Where are all the MAPS 3 public meetings?".

[proud2Bsooner]

I guess some are upset that their hands didn't get to dip in the cookie jar...I dunno.

The great thing about MAPS is that tangible things are laid out on the table. You either vote that you want to pay for it or not. It's simple. Now maybe we all don't get to decide what goes on the ballot, but who has that kind of time???

I tell ya who...those who could benefit from these deals... So some guys benefit from the progress of the City, whats new? Maybe this is a new set of guys. Maybe they are from the newer mayors camp and not the old mayors camp. I dunno.

This is about the progress of OKC. And we all get to vote. All this bickering serves no purpose as far as I am concerned. Unions and other greedies are stirring up trouble.

Its laid out there. Either vote yes or vote no on the merits of the proposals.

[Doug Loudenback]

You are so totally missing the point, proud. I'm voting yes. Blair is, too. Oh, well ...

[bdhumphreys]

You are so totally missing the point, proud. I'm voting yes. Blair is, too. Oh, well ...

Hear! Hear!

[proud2Bsooner]

You are so totally missing the point, proud. I'm voting yes. Blair is, too. Oh, well ...

Then perhaps the point has been no better laid out than the vision of MAPS3. How many people should be allowed in on the decision? The situation could easily turn into a money grab. It's human nature to push for items that would benefit your cause ($$$).

Exactly what has been missed in this MAPS3 proposal? Because we're basically talking generalities here about the process, which does not appear to do us any good. It's basically just bellyaching. The process is the process, and someone has to draw a line on whom will be involved. You can only take so many suggestions, and frankly, what has been laid out as the offering looks quite appealing. But who knows?

It seems that certain people were removed from the process. I'm not in the know enough to understand why that may be. I'm sure some know or have good suspicions.

[Midtowner]

Proud, I think what folks are grasping at is that the claim by the City that this process would be open to the public was basically a lie. They have a website which has very little content, ran a survey, and otherwise have not included the public much at all.

This is of great concern to some because we generally do not trust things which are unfamiliar or even worse, government sponsored agendas which purposely excluded the public from the decisionmaking process. The City is asking for a hell of a lot of trust for us to just fork over the money for these projects which they'll be in no way bound to complete.

[proud2Bsooner]

Proud, I think what folks are grasping at is that the claim by the City that this process would be open to the public was basically a lie. They have a website which has very little content, ran a survey, and otherwise have not included the public much at all.

This is of great concern to some because we generally do not trust things which are unfamiliar or even worse, government sponsored agendas which purposely excluded the public from the decisionmaking process. The City is asking for a hell of a lot of trust for us to just fork over the money for these projects which they'll be in no way bound to complete.

Despite much of the current-era political rhetoric, we do not live in a democracy. I'm no MAPs expert, nor am I an attorney, but how is the current process different than previous projects? Were there public meetings with input garnered from local residents? My memory does not serve me, nor did I have a famous local last name for me to know.

[Midtowner]

I think expectations for openness in 2009 are vastly different from 1993.

[proud2Bsooner]

Maybe they are different, but comparing this to the City's past failures sure seems like an overreaching and dangerous statement...particularly when this is something that one alledgedly supports. The arguments presented about transparency sound awfully flakey on one hand (i.e. democracizing the process??? To what extent???) and self-serving on the other (MY vision for OKC). Both bad. People who criticize should be ready to be criticized. This discussion is usless at this point. We all get to vote. Sorry your voices weren't heard. Mine wasn't either, but I'm not b!tching and moaning about it.

[Doug Loudenback]

Despite much of the current-era political rhetoric, we do not live in a democracy. I'm no MAPs expert, nor am I an attorney, but how is the current process different than previous projects? Were there public meetings with input garnered from local residents? My memory does not serve me, nor did I have a famous local last name for me to know.

Well, whether we live in a democracy, I guess that we disagree. The citizens of the city will decide whether to pass the proposal, at least, I hope so.

Which leads me to the second matter. You asked how MAPS 3 is different than previous projects.

Aside from ballot issues, the main other thing that is different is that in MAPS and MAPS For Kids, journalists, and I'm talking about Oklahoman journalists, were free to investigate, write articles, and report upon the opinions of those having a con-MAPS position with the 1st 2 MAPS initiatives, notwithstanding that the editorial position of the paper was pro-MAPS.

In MAPS 3, David Thompson, Chairman of the Chamber's Board, is leading the Chamber's campaign; David is president of the OPUBCO Communications Group; and Oklahoman reporters are being disallowed to perform the same roles that they did in MAPS and MAPS For Kids. And that has an enormous bearing upon the roll of the press in a democracy.

When the 4th estate becomes so entwined with government as to control what its readers get to read, that's a problem. It's one thing for a newspaper to have an editorial opinion; it's another for that editorial opinion to subjugate its news and reporting functions.

If this doesn't bother you in the slightest, well, all I can again say is that we disagree.

I'm fine with the projects selected, even if the process wasn't the open one which was promised. You keep talking about stuff which is beside the point of the matters being discussed in this thread, though I don't know why.

[bdhumphreys]

Despite much of the current-era political rhetoric, we do not live in a democracy. I'm no MAPs expert, nor am I an attorney, but how is the current process different than previous projects? Were there public meetings with input garnered from local residents? My memory does not serve me, nor did I have a famous local last name for me to know.

Hmm, I really seem to have ticked you off. Not sure I understand the reason for lashing out. The fact that I balance my boosterism with logic and principles doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Why can't we get our MAPS 3 projects and a legitimate public process? That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Anyway, to answer your question: Yes, there were public meetings with the previous MAPS efforts.

Proud, I think what folks are grasping at is that the claim by the City that this process would be open to the public was basically a lie. They have a website which has very little content, ran a survey, and otherwise have not included the public much at all.

Exactly!

I think expectations for openness in 2009 are vastly different from 1993.

True, and yet the previous MAPS efforts still managed to have a more substantial public process.

Aside from ballot issues, the main other thing that is different is that in MAPS and MAPS For Kids, journalists, and I'm talking about Oklahoman journalists, were free to investigate, write articles, and report upon the opinions of those having a con-MAPS position with the 1st 2 MAPS initiatives, notwithstanding that the editorial position of the paper was pro-MAPS.

In MAPS 3, David Thompson, Chairman of the Chamber's Board, is leading the Chamber's campaign; David is president of the OPUBCO Communications Group; and Oklahoman reporters are being disallowed to perform the same roles that they did in MAPS and MAPS For Kids. And that has an enormous bearing upon the roll of the press in a democracy.

It is hard to believe that this is true, but one needs no more evidence than Doug's matrix comparing the quality and number of articles. Given the size of the conflict, one would think the Oklahoman would at least always disclose it in articles covering MAPS 3, but they have not.

[bdhumphreys]

People who criticize should be ready to be criticized.

Oh, forgot to mention. Feel free to dish out whatever you want. I have screwed up plenty in my life, so it is not too difficult to find things to criticize.

[Larry OKC]

... Perhaps you can convince your father, our former Mayor to speak out publically about this honesty and open government issue since he has a lot of clout in this City. I imagine that would go a long way in how our citizens and leaders think.

Seems unlikely since he is the co-treasurer of the Yes Camapign but we can hope. Not eacatly the same of course, but there are a few things in common. Ran across this old article recently and seems apropos...

Does the county sheriff need a sales tax? | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET
Does the county sheriff need a sales tax?
Journal Record (5/1/03)

"This is not about public safety," Humphreys continued. More than 98 percent of the citizens of Oklahoma County have a municipal police force that patrols their neighborhoods, Humphreys said. It doesn't seem equitable to tax 100 percent of the people to pay for services for 2 percent, he said. Humphreys quoted the sheriff's claims that crime is down by 60 percent.

"It's totally unaccountable," Humphreys said. "If the sheriff wanted to buy a jet airplane, he could, according to this ballot language, and he'd be answerable to nobody." The semi-annual reports the ballot would require would only show how funds were spent after the fact, he said.
.....
Members of the Sheriff's Citizens Advisory Committee mentioned in the ballot, which would be responsible for overseeing how the funds are spent, serve at the sheriff's pleasure, he said.
...
Though the sheriff has said a large portion of the money from the tax would go to the jail, and that Oklahoma City would no longer need to pay the county millions each year to house prisoners, Humphreys stressed that those words are not contained in the ballot.

[bdhumphreys]

That is a pretty impressive find Larry. The comments certainly allow for some interesting parallels to be drawn.

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry's a snitch. Let's get him.