How should i vote? give me up to 3 sentences on yes or no

[soonerfan_in_okc]

i figure this could be fun from all of the bickering. list up to three sentences on why you think i should vote yes or no. go!

[okrednk]

YES.

It's beneficial to offering new things the city has to offer.

As we learned from past Maps projects, new businesses and growth soon follow.

It's an exciting time to be in OKC and watch our city become it's own--be apart of it.

Just my two cents.

[kevinpate]

... list up to three sentences on why you think i should vote yes or no.

Because 'yes' or 'no; are your only choices, unless you just stay home and pretend it doesn't matter.

Because you want to hold an honestly earned right to sing high praise, or gritch, for years to come after the 12/08/09 vote.

Because voting yes, or voting no, is overall far more satisfying than eating allegedly healthy choices via a Taco Bell drive-through.

.oO(hey, you're right, that was fun!)Oo.

[betts]

I'm voting yes, and I'm voting for:

A wind-powered streetcar that I hope will be the stimulus for mass transit all over the city.

A city that will be interesting and exciting enough to keep my kids here, or bring them back.

A jump start to a signature space in Oklahoma City (Core to Shore) that will link our river to our downtown, that will give us a face as a city.

[jstanthrnme]

3 sentences? that calls for a Haiku!

A wonderful park
for future generations
Please Vote Yes, Maps 3

[soonerfan_in_okc]

Because 'yes' or 'no; are your only choices, unless you just stay home and pretend it doesn't matter.

Because you want to hold an honestly earned right to sing high praise, or gritch, for years to come after the 12/08/09 vote.

Because voting yes, or voting no, is overall far more satisfying than eating allegedly healthy choices via a Taco Bell drive-through.

.oO(hey, you're right, that was fun!)Oo.

lmao. i knew somebody would have seen it like that.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

3 sentences? that calls for a Haiku!

A wonderful park
for future generations
Please Vote Yes, Maps 3

very creative

[jbrown84]

YES

1) MAPS has shown that major capital projects increase morale, are a major catalyst to private development, and undoubtedly make OKC a better place to live.

2) Public safety, ongoing upkeep of parks, and staffing issues are completely separate from this vote and need to be addressed in a different way.

3) $10 a month (an overestimate) is a small price to pay for a better city.

[Midtowner]

YES

The only reason we are so much better off in OKC than we were 20 years ago is because of MAPS.

Property values are a reflection of how much people want to live here. Make this a more attractive place to live, and if you're a property owner, whatever you pay for these projects will pay off when your property values go up.

Aside from those things, imagine the sorts of things you'll get to do in the next decade -- spend opening night in OKC's world-class downtown park, ride the train to some Thunder games, drive through your city's downtown and realize that you live in an attractive, alive city which people all over the world want to visit.

[khook]

yes continued investment in ourselves-- no one else will do it for us.

yes to the start of a mass transit system -- no it won't be city wide to begin with, but give it time

yes to further diversity and development of recreational possibilities - maybe we'll get off our fat as---

Oh and I proably spent more than $10 a month on soft drinks.... so the 10 dollars it will cost me each month is pretty small change in the total picture of things. Maybe I'll have to forgo eating lunch out one day a month to breakeven.

[circled9]

midtowner had the best answer. vote yes but require accountability. show up at counsel meetings and other public forums. it would be great to have everything that MAPS 3 advertises but I want to make sure that we get it.

in the meantime, MAPS 4 has to be for the neighborhoods and suberbs.

[Chance23]

I'll provide the best of both as I see them.

yes arguments

- A larger convention center and expansion of the fairgrounds could be an economic boom for the city, providing a lot of extra tax revenue to go to other uses.
- A public transportation system that could be expanded is the hallmark of any major city and helps promote continued investment, which is necessary for a city to continue growing.
- A trail system, sidewalks and large park could help create a healthier culture.

No arguments

- The city has a lot of needs that aren't being met, and while people will continuously try to claim that anything someone might use against it is a separate issue, it all relates to the issue of voter fatigue, which the mayor himself has spoken about being important, and all those little taxes add up.
- The bulk of the money is going to one portion of the city where a smaller percentage of people live and may not provide actual, tangible benefits beyond it and many of the projects chosen weren't projects that were largely desired by the citizen's polled, which they have yet to answer for.
- The ballot is vague and doesn't truly provide any accountability or reasonable expectation that the money they're claiming they need will provide everything they say it is going to.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

I'll provide the best of both as I see them.

yes arguments

- A larger convention center and expansion of the fairgrounds could be an economic boom for the city, providing a lot of extra tax revenue to go to other uses.
- A public transportation system that could be expanded is the hallmark of any major city and helps promote continued investment, which is necessary for a city to continue growing.
- A trail system, sidewalks and large park could help create a healthier culture.

No arguments

- The city has a lot of needs that aren't being met, and while people will continuously try to claim that anything someone might use against it is a separate issue, it all relates to the issue of voter fatigue, which the mayor himself has spoken about being important, and all those little taxes add up.
- The bulk of the money is going to one portion of the city where a smaller percentage of people live and may not provide actual, tangible benefits beyond it and many of the projects chosen weren't projects that were largely desired by the citizen's polled, which they have yet to answer for.
- The ballot is vague and doesn't truly provide any accountability or reasonable expectation that the money they're claiming they need will provide everything they say it is going to.

pretty much what i was wanting was a no argument to compare it too haha. ty for that. each of those no arguments really hit home to me, but at the same time it seems like the risk is small enough to vote yes for maps 3 without having to worry about horrible results if somehow it does go wrong.


with that said, do you guys think that with so many issues being brought up during the whole maps 3 campaign that many of the "no arguments" will start to get more attention from our local gov?

[Chance23]

Not really, the local government has heard all the arguments before, they just don't really pay any attention to them. A lot of what's on the ballot are things that weren't suggested, so it's pretty clear that, if they have an idea in mind, they're going to do whatever it takes to pass it (which is why I think the notion of them suddenly stopping if it fails is ridiculous.)

[Midtowner]

with that said, do you guys think that with so many issues being brought up during the whole maps 3 campaign that many of the "no arguments" will start to get more attention from our local gov?

No. The city is actually being ridiculously myopic here. In fact, valid points have been raised regarding the constitutionality of the ballot language itself in that it does nothing to specify the purpose for which the tax is being raised (a constitutional requirement) and other similar structural infirmities.

There are reasons to have doubts about this program because so far as I can tell, the information being given to us regarding why the ballot is the way it is (not mentioning projects by name) seems to be wrong. A quick look at the case law will tell you that anti-logrolling provisions have never been applied to municipalities, so there's at least a little bit of good reason to distrust the city's/chamber's motives here.

That said, the folks I've had a chance to speak with who were personally involved in MAPS I are very proud of what they accomplished and did so, not out of wanting profit, but out of civic duty.... I have no reason other than wonky ballot language to suspect the motives of the current writers.

Finally, the only real arguments against MAPS are that it costs too much [it doesn't] or that it threatens public services. It in no way takes money away from public services, and if it does help our economy, which it will, public services will realize more income due to increased sales tax collections.

[Watson410]

YUP!!

1) We'll have streetcars downtown!! How cool is that?!?

2) Brand spanking new Convention Center!! Future Presidential Debate anyone?!?

3) I'll be able to go white water rafting in the middle of the city!! That's SICK!!!

Please vote YES on MAPS3, So I can enjoy all the above! Thanks in advance!

[iron76hd]

VOTE NO!

NOT THIS MAPS! We can do better.

I have delayed publishing this because I really wanted to support the MAPS 3 proposals. I have been hoping that more and better information would be made available, but the City’s campaign seems to be all sizzle and no steak.

Below are my concerns about the MAPS 3 proposal, as it is presented at this time. Advocates of sustainability, social justice, and good governance must weigh the pros and cons of the various projects to determine if, all things considered, a “yes” vote for MAPS 3 is warranted. At this point, with the information we have, I am voting against the MAPS 3 proposals, and I encourage others to do the same. We can do much better than the MAPS 3 proposal.

1. No Assurance of Project Completion.

There is no assurance that the announced MAPS 3 projects will actually be completed. The specific projects will not appear on the ballot, instead, we will vote on a generic grant of authority to the City Council to keep the sales tax where it is and spend the money on unspecified projects.

The resolution concerning the projects is non-binding and could be changed at any time by this or a future City Council. Some or all of these projects could be cancelled or replaced with other “priorities”.

The City is doing this to avoid having to list each project as a separate ballot issue, which would allow voters to pick and choose among the projects. Giving the City a blank check for hundreds of millions of dollars is not a good idea.

2. The City is being stingy with info.

The vote is rapidly approaching, yet there is almost nothing other than fluff at the City’s website, The Oklahoman’s editors are firmly in favor of MAPS 3. The Gazette seems to have the best reporting I’ve seen, it’s one of the few places where questions are being asked about “operating costs”, for example.

The only local source collecting “all the MAPS 3 news” is the Doug Dawgz blog, who is doing a fantastic job collecting the meager info about the MAPS 3 vote, at Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3 .

Among the most important unanswered questions are –
+ How will the projects be staged? Which will be first? Last?

The only clue thus far is a statement by the Mayor at a Nov 16 Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the park would be “first priority”. Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3 (Scroll down to the Nov 16th report.)

+ If revenue estimates fall short due to continued economic instability, which projects get cut? Although the question has been asked at the City council, no clear answer was forthcoming.

+ Regarding revenue estimates . . . the city’s website notes that previous revenue estimates came very close to the actual receipts, but the website does not disclose the methodology to produce the MAPS 3 revenue estimates. “Showing their work”, as our math teachers used to demand, would help build confidence in their revenue estimates.

+ What about operating revenues for the convention center, river amenities, transit, park, senior citizens centers, etc? Will other city expenses have to be cut to pay for these new unfunded operating expenses?

The designer for the park says some city revenues will be needed for park operations, but apparently no projected budget presently exists nor are the future fiscal demands on the city known at this time. Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3 .Scroll down to the report of the Oct 29 Chamber of Commerce luncheon and the remarks of Mary Margaret Jones of Hargreaves Associates.

A Nov 4th article in the Gazette says that the city manager has agreed to absorb $2 million/year in operational costs for the downtown streetcar system into the regular city budget. If there is an estimate on the entire operations budget, nobody is saying anything about it thus far.

Regarding operations costs of the senior wellness/aquatic centers, an article in the Nov. 11th Oklahoma City Gazette says that no budget presently exists for the centers. Mayor: ?Mind-boggling? number of paddle sports, boating events could come to Oklahoma City | OKG Scene.com

This lack of attention to the details of operating costs seems extremely irresponsible. These days, no one in the private sector would be able to get funding for capital projects without an operations budget and a plan for financing the operations. No bank would loan a business money on the vague promise that “we will have a budget” and “we will get the money”.

+ Is there a map of the proposed trail system? Is it configured so that it could facilitate bicycle commuting or is it strictly a recreational program?

3. Equity Issues.

MAPS 3 has some very real social justice and equity issues. Will MAPS 3 accelerate the process of gentrifying/improving the city’s central areas – at the cost of driving the de-gentrification of suburban areas? MAPS 3 programs $600 million in downtown spending, and only $160 million elsewhere in the city. No transit dollars are programmed for the suburbs. Dollars spent gentrifying the central city areas can’t be used to support low income and middle class areas elsewhere in the city. Oklahoma City’s MAPS 3 may therefore increase the risk of de-gentrifying areas of the city that are not served by transit and are not conveniently located for access to the “new and improved” downtown area. This should be of particular concern to voters and property owners in the city’s suburban areas.

It is evident that transportation decisions have enormous impacts on city development. The extension of early trolley car lines jump-started the growth of the City’s first suburbs – neighborhoods we know today as Gatewood, Mesta Park, etc. In the 60s and 70s, the construction of freeways and Northwest Expressway enabled a new generation of suburbs far away from downtown. This reflected the cheap energy and automobile orientation of the late 20th century. But nothing stays the same. The 21st century is an era of higher energy prices bringing new interest in public transportation options.

In the 21st century, neighborhoods served by public transportation have significant advantages over neighborhoods without access to public transit. The concentration of MAPS 3 transportation dollars in the City’s central core will drive housing decisions. More people buying downtown and in the central city mean fewer people interested in houses in the suburban areas. It also displaces lower income people from the areas close to downtown. That is a process that can drive de-gentrification in suburban areas. Look at the rest of the world – the slums are in the suburbs, not the central city areas.

The decision to go for a central city trolley system, without any improvements elsewhere in the city, means that it will likely be ten years before a significant upgrade in the rest of the city’s transit systems will be considered. Given the volatility of oil prices, ten years is too long to wait,.

4. Convention Center.

The proposed new convention center is a great 20th century idea. Unfortunately, this is the 21st century and we need 21st century ideas, not old, tired, “everybody’s doing it so we have to” ideas from the 20th century. Many questions remain unanswered. Do the Ford and Cox buildings have operating deficits? Will the new convention center make a profit or will it need an annual subsidy? If so, where will that subsidy come from?

The City brags about tourism jobs, but the fact of that matter is that tourism jobs are hospitality industry jobs and that means “low-paid jobs with few or no benefits.” Do we really want to give such a major subsidy to an industry characterized by low paid and part-time work? According to Roy Williams of the OKC Chamber of Commerce, the new convention center will create 1100 jobs. At $280 million for the convention center, this is a cost of $254,000 per low-wage job. Will the contractors at the new convention center obey the law and collect and pay taxes on the incomes of their workers? Or will they, as is sometimes the case with contractors for events at our existing facilities, pay workers cash and thus cheat them and the government of taxes and Social Security/Medicare contributions? (NB: I spoke with a low-income worker last week who confirmed that when he works temp jobs at city facilities, taxes are not withheld from his paycheck and his employer does not pay social security taxes on his wages.)

Instead of investing in a new convention center, we would be ahead financially if that money was instead invested in a comprehensive area transit system that would allow families to save thousands of dollars in commuting costs and reduce pollution and damage to our city’s streets.

5. Police and Fire-fighter concerns.

The police and fire-fighter unions have expressed concerns about public safety being under-funded at the cost of expanding economic development (a/k/a socialism for the politically well-connected). There can be no doubt that in recent years the city has neglected its infrastructure responsibilities. Projects from previous bond issues remain uncompleted, public safety personnel positions are being cut even as the City’s area and popuation increases, and the City’s transit system is exceptionally poor. Of the MAPS 3 moneys, well over half the funds are “economic development”. This comes on the heels of our recent $120 million welfare check to help 3 of the richest families in the state steal the Sonics from Seattle, and the decision to invest all of the property taxes for the next 20 years from the new Devon Energy tower downtown rather than using them to fund the regular budgets of our schools, libraries, health departments, and general government operations.

6. Sustainability Issues.

Advocates of sustainability should be concerned about the continued mis-allocation of increasingly scarce resources that the MAPS 3 proposal represents. The convention center and the piece-meal approach to area transit are major sustainability issues.

As noted above, the convention center is an investment in social injustice (using tax money to create low-wage/low-benefit jobs for companies that typically treat their employees with injustrice e.g. not paying social security taxes on their payrolls). Social injustice is never good for sustainability.

The convention center is an investment in the travel industry, and the travel promoted by conventions is mostly air travel, the most unsustainable and polluting of all the methods of travel. Moreover, given the on-going economic crisis, and the possibility of permanently changed economic codnitions, the future of the convention industry is problematic at best.

The sustainability problem with the transit component is that the City has adopted a piece-meal approach to regional transit. This is inefficient and will greatly increase costs, both fiscal capital costs and opportunity costs to transit patrons. For example, MAPS 1 built a downtown terminal for the City’s bus system MAPS 3 now proposes a downtown trolley system — with a terminal not conveniently locatedat the same place as the bus terminal. This builds major inefficiencies into the system for patrons. It decreases the value of the downtown trolley system by increasing its inconvenience to patrons of the bus system. City leaders promise eventually to build a regional transit system, whose terminal may be in a third location! More inefficiency.

The MAPS 3 proposal accepts the destruction of the rail center of Union Station, and does not conceptualize its replacement with a multi-modal transportation center. So we reject our heritage transportation assets, without a clear plan for their replacement. This uncoordinated approach to transit adopted by the City will make the eventual creation of a multi-modal, regional transportation center much more expensive.

While there are some good pro-sustainability projects in the proposal (trails and sidewalks) there is no absolute assurance that those projects will be built, due to the way the City Council chose to structure the ballot. As presently configured, MAPS 3 is an investment in unsustainability. And going into the 20th century, cities that consistently invest in unsustainability will find themselves left behind.

Conclusion

If we continue the City Council’s path of taking from the general public and giving to the politically well-connected, Oklahoma City will continue to look more and more like a Victor Hugo novel. We need a better MAPS 3 proposal that meets essential city needs, not another give-away subsidy for downtown special interests. I urge everyone to join with their neighbors to send a message to City Hall – “Not This MAPS!”. We can do better!

[PLANSIT]

^ 3 sentence fail.

Can't even follow instructions.

i go to OU, so each week i drive home on the weekends and go by downtown. I cannot wait until it starts to get into the air. it is gonna look awesome.

YES

1. Without prior MAPS initiatives the chances that Devon would build downtown are greatly diminished.

2. Do your own research; search the web, read the blogs, and visit both campaigns' websites.

3. Make your own decision, don't let anyone convince you how to vote - except me.

[OSUFan]

VOTE NO!

NOT THIS MAPS! We can do better.

I have delayed publishing this because I really wanted to support the MAPS 3 proposals. I have been hoping that more and better information would be made available, but the City’s campaign seems to be all sizzle and no steak.

Below are my concerns about the MAPS 3 proposal, as it is presented at this time. Advocates of sustainability, social justice, and good governance must weigh the pros and cons of the various projects to determine if, all things considered, a “yes” vote for MAPS 3 is warranted. At this point, with the information we have, I am voting against the MAPS 3 proposals, and I encourage others to do the same. We can do much better than the MAPS 3 proposal.

1. No Assurance of Project Completion.

There is no assurance that the announced MAPS 3 projects will actually be completed. The specific projects will not appear on the ballot, instead, we will vote on a generic grant of authority to the City Council to keep the sales tax where it is and spend the money on unspecified projects.

The resolution concerning the projects is non-binding and could be changed at any time by this or a future City Council. Some or all of these projects could be cancelled or replaced with other “priorities”.

The City is doing this to avoid having to list each project as a separate ballot issue, which would allow voters to pick and choose among the projects. Giving the City a blank check for hundreds of millions of dollars is not a good idea.

2. The City is being stingy with info.

The vote is rapidly approaching, yet there is almost nothing other than fluff at the City’s website, The Oklahoman’s editors are firmly in favor of MAPS 3. The Gazette seems to have the best reporting I’ve seen, it’s one of the few places where questions are being asked about “operating costs”, for example.

The only local source collecting “all the MAPS 3 news” is the Doug Dawgz blog, who is doing a fantastic job collecting the meager info about the MAPS 3 vote, at Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3 .

Among the most important unanswered questions are –
+ How will the projects be staged? Which will be first? Last?

The only clue thus far is a statement by the Mayor at a Nov 16 Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the park would be “first priority”. Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3 (Scroll down to the Nov 16th report.)

+ If revenue estimates fall short due to continued economic instability, which projects get cut? Although the question has been asked at the City council, no clear answer was forthcoming.

+ Regarding revenue estimates . . . the city’s website notes that previous revenue estimates came very close to the actual receipts, but the website does not disclose the methodology to produce the MAPS 3 revenue estimates. “Showing their work”, as our math teachers used to demand, would help build confidence in their revenue estimates.

+ What about operating revenues for the convention center, river amenities, transit, park, senior citizens centers, etc? Will other city expenses have to be cut to pay for these new unfunded operating expenses?

The designer for the park says some city revenues will be needed for park operations, but apparently no projected budget presently exists nor are the future fiscal demands on the city known at this time. Doug Dawgz Blog: All The News About MAPS 3 .Scroll down to the report of the Oct 29 Chamber of Commerce luncheon and the remarks of Mary Margaret Jones of Hargreaves Associates.

A Nov 4th article in the Gazette says that the city manager has agreed to absorb $2 million/year in operational costs for the downtown streetcar system into the regular city budget. If there is an estimate on the entire operations budget, nobody is saying anything about it thus far.

Regarding operations costs of the senior wellness/aquatic centers, an article in the Nov. 11th Oklahoma City Gazette says that no budget presently exists for the centers. Mayor: ?Mind-boggling? number of paddle sports, boating events could come to Oklahoma City | OKG Scene.com

This lack of attention to the details of operating costs seems extremely irresponsible. These days, no one in the private sector would be able to get funding for capital projects without an operations budget and a plan for financing the operations. No bank would loan a business money on the vague promise that “we will have a budget” and “we will get the money”.

+ Is there a map of the proposed trail system? Is it configured so that it could facilitate bicycle commuting or is it strictly a recreational program?

3. Equity Issues.

MAPS 3 has some very real social justice and equity issues. Will MAPS 3 accelerate the process of gentrifying/improving the city’s central areas – at the cost of driving the de-gentrification of suburban areas? MAPS 3 programs $600 million in downtown spending, and only $160 million elsewhere in the city. No transit dollars are programmed for the suburbs. Dollars spent gentrifying the central city areas can’t be used to support low income and middle class areas elsewhere in the city. Oklahoma City’s MAPS 3 may therefore increase the risk of de-gentrifying areas of the city that are not served by transit and are not conveniently located for access to the “new and improved” downtown area. This should be of particular concern to voters and property owners in the city’s suburban areas.

It is evident that transportation decisions have enormous impacts on city development. The extension of early trolley car lines jump-started the growth of the City’s first suburbs – neighborhoods we know today as Gatewood, Mesta Park, etc. In the 60s and 70s, the construction of freeways and Northwest Expressway enabled a new generation of suburbs far away from downtown. This reflected the cheap energy and automobile orientation of the late 20th century. But nothing stays the same. The 21st century is an era of higher energy prices bringing new interest in public transportation options.

In the 21st century, neighborhoods served by public transportation have significant advantages over neighborhoods without access to public transit. The concentration of MAPS 3 transportation dollars in the City’s central core will drive housing decisions. More people buying downtown and in the central city mean fewer people interested in houses in the suburban areas. It also displaces lower income people from the areas close to downtown. That is a process that can drive de-gentrification in suburban areas. Look at the rest of the world – the slums are in the suburbs, not the central city areas.

The decision to go for a central city trolley system, without any improvements elsewhere in the city, means that it will likely be ten years before a significant upgrade in the rest of the city’s transit systems will be considered. Given the volatility of oil prices, ten years is too long to wait,.

4. Convention Center.

The proposed new convention center is a great 20th century idea. Unfortunately, this is the 21st century and we need 21st century ideas, not old, tired, “everybody’s doing it so we have to” ideas from the 20th century. Many questions remain unanswered. Do the Ford and Cox buildings have operating deficits? Will the new convention center make a profit or will it need an annual subsidy? If so, where will that subsidy come from?

The City brags about tourism jobs, but the fact of that matter is that tourism jobs are hospitality industry jobs and that means “low-paid jobs with few or no benefits.” Do we really want to give such a major subsidy to an industry characterized by low paid and part-time work? According to Roy Williams of the OKC Chamber of Commerce, the new convention center will create 1100 jobs. At $280 million for the convention center, this is a cost of $254,000 per low-wage job. Will the contractors at the new convention center obey the law and collect and pay taxes on the incomes of their workers? Or will they, as is sometimes the case with contractors for events at our existing facilities, pay workers cash and thus cheat them and the government of taxes and Social Security/Medicare contributions? (NB: I spoke with a low-income worker last week who confirmed that when he works temp jobs at city facilities, taxes are not withheld from his paycheck and his employer does not pay social security taxes on his wages.)

Instead of investing in a new convention center, we would be ahead financially if that money was instead invested in a comprehensive area transit system that would allow families to save thousands of dollars in commuting costs and reduce pollution and damage to our city’s streets.

5. Police and Fire-fighter concerns.

The police and fire-fighter unions have expressed concerns about public safety being under-funded at the cost of expanding economic development (a/k/a socialism for the politically well-connected). There can be no doubt that in recent years the city has neglected its infrastructure responsibilities. Projects from previous bond issues remain uncompleted, public safety personnel positions are being cut even as the City’s area and popuation increases, and the City’s transit system is exceptionally poor. Of the MAPS 3 moneys, well over half the funds are “economic development”. This comes on the heels of our recent $120 million welfare check to help 3 of the richest families in the state steal the Sonics from Seattle, and the decision to invest all of the property taxes for the next 20 years from the new Devon Energy tower downtown rather than using them to fund the regular budgets of our schools, libraries, health departments, and general government operations.

6. Sustainability Issues.

Advocates of sustainability should be concerned about the continued mis-allocation of increasingly scarce resources that the MAPS 3 proposal represents. The convention center and the piece-meal approach to area transit are major sustainability issues.

As noted above, the convention center is an investment in social injustice (using tax money to create low-wage/low-benefit jobs for companies that typically treat their employees with injustrice e.g. not paying social security taxes on their payrolls). Social injustice is never good for sustainability.

The convention center is an investment in the travel industry, and the travel promoted by conventions is mostly air travel, the most unsustainable and polluting of all the methods of travel. Moreover, given the on-going economic crisis, and the possibility of permanently changed economic codnitions, the future of the convention industry is problematic at best.

The sustainability problem with the transit component is that the City has adopted a piece-meal approach to regional transit. This is inefficient and will greatly increase costs, both fiscal capital costs and opportunity costs to transit patrons. For example, MAPS 1 built a downtown terminal for the City’s bus system MAPS 3 now proposes a downtown trolley system — with a terminal not conveniently locatedat the same place as the bus terminal. This builds major inefficiencies into the system for patrons. It decreases the value of the downtown trolley system by increasing its inconvenience to patrons of the bus system. City leaders promise eventually to build a regional transit system, whose terminal may be in a third location! More inefficiency.

The MAPS 3 proposal accepts the destruction of the rail center of Union Station, and does not conceptualize its replacement with a multi-modal transportation center. So we reject our heritage transportation assets, without a clear plan for their replacement. This uncoordinated approach to transit adopted by the City will make the eventual creation of a multi-modal, regional transportation center much more expensive.

While there are some good pro-sustainability projects in the proposal (trails and sidewalks) there is no absolute assurance that those projects will be built, due to the way the City Council chose to structure the ballot. As presently configured, MAPS 3 is an investment in unsustainability. And going into the 20th century, cities that consistently invest in unsustainability will find themselves left behind.

Conclusion

If we continue the City Council’s path of taking from the general public and giving to the politically well-connected, Oklahoma City will continue to look more and more like a Victor Hugo novel. We need a better MAPS 3 proposal that meets essential city needs, not another give-away subsidy for downtown special interests. I urge everyone to join with their neighbors to send a message to City Hall – “Not This MAPS!”. We can do better!

I think people on here would appreciate it if you linked or sited the blog you copied this from. You are giving off the impression these are your orginal thoughs without doing so.

[purplemonkeythief]

NO

There's nothing stoping the City from using the money for anything they want. There's nothing in writing saying that they will actually work on any of the items listed in the MAPS3 initiative.

Change the language of the ballot, let us vote on each item.

[gmwise]

NO

There's nothing stoping the City from using the money for anything they want. There's nothing in writing saying that they will actually work on any of the items listed in the MAPS3 initiative.

Change the language of the ballot, let us vote on each item.

I agree they need to fix that.


I wished we could restrict the number of sentences and or the number of words used in a thread.
Too many ramblers! lol

[jbrown84]

I think people on here would appreciate it if you linked or sited the blog you copied this from. You are giving off the impression these are your orginal thoughs without doing so.

LOL he copied that from a blog? Not surprising at all. This is the first time he's used words like "sustainability" and "social injustice".

[betts]

The MAPS 3 proposal accepts the destruction of the rail center of Union Station, and does not conceptualize its replacement with a multi-modal transportation center. So we reject our heritage transportation assets, without a clear plan for their replacement. This uncoordinated approach to transit adopted by the City will make the eventual creation of a multi-modal, regional transportation center much more expensive.

Wink.

[hipsterdoofus]

No - I feel that eventually the effects of the recession are going to hit Oklahoma City moreso than they have. I don't think that a new park is going to help that. There may be some good ideas in MAPS 3, but I don't think this is the appropriate time for them and I think it is suspicious that they Mayor, who should represent the entire city, not just corporate types, is not really showing any desire to dialogue.

[gmwise]

Fascists like to sell out to the corporate types