New MAPS Website- MAPS Facts.org

[Urban Pioneer]

They really needed to do this. I went to the "anti MAPS" rally this morning and was shocked by the level of mis-information being thrown at the public.

MAPSFACTS.ORG

[purplemonkeythief]

Very first problem I see on that site: "Facts: This MAPS proposal is structured the same as previous MAPS proposals and for good reason."

No, it most certainly is not structured the same as previous MAPS proposals.. Do they think we can't go back and look at the previous ballots?

All that site does for me is solidify the FACT that the city is lying to the citizens in order to get a blank check with no oversight and no guarantees about what will be worked on or where the money will actually be used.

[andy157]

If there were only someone out there. Someone with the skills, knowledge, ability, and the integrety to do a comparision of the two sites, that would be great. (hint, hint.)

[Urban Pioneer]

No, it most certainly is not structured the same as previous MAPS proposals.. Do they think we can't go back and look at the previous ballots?

All that site does for me is solidify the FACT that the city is lying to the citizens in order to get a blank check with no oversight and no guarantees about what will be worked on or where the money will actually be used.

I completely disagree. The other MAPS had diligent citizen oversight boards. The mayor and council have committed to having oversight boards for this MAPS as well.

Regarding the ballots, it is unclear to me exactly what the differences are that you are referring to. It is my understanding that this ballot is written to be in compliance with the current laws as the pertain to such an proposal. So as long as it is stringently in compliance, I don't see the problem.

I guess the final esoteric argument that I find sound is, we elected these people to represent us. So far we have had no scandals and pleasant consistent governing with these particular individuals for many years.

What has changed so much that we can't continue to trust our elected municipal officials to continue making tough discussions for us?

[Larry OKC]

The 1st "Fact" under the Convention Center isn't accurate

[OSUFan]

The 1st "Fact" under the Convention Center isn't accurate

Why? Because of a potential hotel?

[betts]

Urban, I don't think many of the anti-MAPS people are going to look at that website. They don't want to be confused by the facts, I can promise you. One could argue that the pro-MAPS people feel the same way, I'm sure.

My biggest problem is that many of the anti-tax people are only against something. I'd like to know what they're for. I want to know what their vision for Oklahoma City is. I want to know how they think we're going to manage transit issues, how we can make this a better city in which to live. What do they think we should do to grow the economy? How do we increase quality of life and offer more leisure time opportunities to our citizens? How do we beautify our city? I'm waiting for something positive.

They seem to want someone else to do it for them (private sector?), but as a group, all I hear is that many of them seem to fear and despise the very private sector that will end up being the only option for development. Larry Nichols has been very magnanimous, but I suspect he won't be building us bike trails and sidewalks, putting in grandstands on the river, building a streetcar or a bigger park, much less a convention center or senior aquatic centers. So, we'll do without. I'm just interested in learning why that makes Oklahoma City a better place in which to live from all of them.

[Urban Pioneer]

I was just watching Channel 4 and they ran a story on the difference in the Ballots. Basically it is illegal to do it the same way we did in 1993 where each element is "spelled out".

[Urban Pioneer]

It is a good video.

MAPS 3 ballot criticism - KFOR

[Doug Loudenback]

If there were only someone out there. Someone with the skills, knowledge, ability, and the integrety to do a comparision of the two sites, that would be great. (hint, hint.)

Probably you didn't mean me, but if you did my plate is full. Getting the press conference comparisons ... big time time consuming ... and the Maps 3 "Breaking Through" luncheon done put me waaay behind on my "All the News About MAPS 3" post, and I'm turning to getting that caught up now.

That said, I'd be pretty amazed if the amount of information out there right now, both pro and con, isn't enough for people to come to their own conclusions. To be sure, we're going to be bombarded by internet, radio, press, TV clips for the next two weeks by both sides. But, information in them? Not likely? Bombastic rhetoric? Probably so. One doesn't really get much real information in sound bites, anyway.

[Doug Loudenback]

It is a good video.

MAPS 3 ballot criticism - KFOR

There is absolutely no "news" in that video ... journalists (and I'm generously lumping into that category TV and radio personalities) continue to parrot the unsubstantiated conclusion that detailing projects in a city sales tax ballot/ordinance is illegal.

The entire city's news organization lacks one person who is willing to press the issue: What constitutional provision, statute, or appellate court decision supports that conclusion? We've ether got a boatload of crappy journalists in our city or we have journalists who haven't been unleashed to ask the right questions.

NO ONE HAS IDENTIFIED WHAT THAT LAW IS, whether it be a constitutional, statutory, or appellate court decision. We've already been around the barn on this topic here so I won't further elaborate. Here, we often see people ask, "give me a link." It's the same thing when it comes to matters of law. In a courtroom, the judge would ask, "Give me a citation." None have been provided, not one.

It blows my mind that everyone just accepts the premise and does not challenge the speakers to "give me a citation."

I say this a a pro-MAPS 3 person but that fact doesn't stop my mind from thinking and wanting to know the underpinnings of what we are being told.

[LakeEffect]

I wonder why the Chamber hasn't put their name on the new site... a site without credits is unreliable...

[andy157]

Probably you didn't mean me, but if you did my plate is full. Getting the press conference comparisons ... big time time consuming ... and the Maps 3 "Breaking Through" luncheon done put me waaay behind on my "All the News About MAPS 3" post, and I'm turning to getting that caught up now.

That said, I'd be pretty amazed if the amount of information out there right now, both pro and con, isn't enough for people to come to their own conclusions. To be sure, we're going to be bombarded by internet, radio, press, TV clips for the next two weeks by both sides. But, information in them? Not likely? Bombastic rhetoric? Probably so. One doesn't really get much real information in sound bites, anyway.

I understand.

[kevinpate]

I was just watching Channel 4 and they ran a story on the difference in the Ballots. Basically it is illegal to do it the same way we did in 1993 where each element is "spelled out".

No, basically, that's merely what is being said.

Doug Dawg is absolutely right. NO ONE relying on that alleged reason is identifying the source of that conclusion. If it is true, and not to be rude, but that's a big IF, then it completely defies logic to not put the argument to bed once and for all.

One can't honestly simply claim an action is illegal and provide zero support for the claim. One can throw it out there and pray it sticks, but at what overall cost to credibility?

Like Doug, I'm not a vote NO'er, hades, I'm not even a voter on this matter as I reside elsewhere, but this is something folks ought to hold feet to fire until there is a clear answer. If it is in fact illegal, it's a minor matter to provide a citation for folks to review. Anything less simple speaks very ill of the claim.

[Midtowner]

No, basically, that's merely what is being said.

Doug Dawg is absolutely right. NO ONE relying on that alleged reason is identifying the source of that conclusion. If it is true, and not to be rude, but that's a big IF, then it completely defies logic to not put the argument to bed once and for all.

One can't honestly simply claim an action is illegal and provide zero support for the claim. One can throw it out there and pray it sticks, but at what overall cost to credibility?

Like Doug, I'm not a vote NO'er, hades, I'm not even a voter on this matter as I reside elsewhere, but this is something folks ought to hold feet to fire until there is a clear answer. If it is in fact illegal, it's a minor matter to provide a citation for folks to review. Anything less simple speaks very ill of the claim.

Free research (and I'm preaching to the choir here 'cuz I know you know how to do this) tip: Go to oscn.net. Go to Legal Research. Bring up the Oklahoma Constitution, Article V. Look for the part about single subject. Now scroll down to the bottom where it has the citationizer. Find one case which stands for the proposition that municipalities are subject to the single subject rule.

Time saver: There's no such case and further by the clear language of the Constitution, the single subject rule specifies it applies to the legislature. It does not specify that it [the rule] applies to municipalities.

Further, municipalities are specifically mentioned in other provisions which were written at the same time by the same folks (said provisions also target the legislature by name).

Does this rule apply to municipalities? All signs point to "no."

[betts]

Midtowner, I don't even begin to claim to have any legal knowledge. The one thing that I've wondered, however, is whether the fact that there appears to be language prohibiting inclusion of all the projects on the ballots was the issue. Is there any chance that some vagueness of the language could have generated legal action the city wants to avoid? It seems to me that there had to have been some legal advice the city received that resulted in this ballot. Because, otherwise, why change what worked in the past when they had to know the new ballot would generate controversy? I'm not buying that the city has a diabolical plan to use tax money for some project other than what they've announced, simply because of the incredibly bad precedent it would set, and the risk of never passing another MAPS proposal.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner, I don't even begin to claim to have any legal knowledge. The one thing that I've wondered, however, is whether the fact that there appears to be language prohibiting inclusion of all the projects on the ballots was the issue. Is there any chance that some vagueness of the language could have generated legal action the city wants to avoid? It seems to me that there had to have been some legal advice the city received that resulted in this ballot. Because, otherwise, why change what worked in the past when they had to know the new ballot would generate controversy? I'm not buying that the city has a diabolical plan to use tax money for some project other than what they've announced, simply because of the incredibly bad precedent it would set, and the risk of never passing another MAPS proposal.

It is quite paradoxical that the city would have chosen the path it did because of some perceived possibility because by avoiding one potential issue in the manner they have chosen, they ran full bore into another one.

Art 10, Section 19 of the Constitution, states "Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which the tax is levied. . . " (emphasis added).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Capital improvements" seems to run far afoul of "specify[ing] distinctly" any purpose whatsoever. In fact, it tends to do exactly the opposite by saying that the city reserves the right to do just about any damn thing it wants with the money... arguably "capital improvements" could mean just about anything, possibly even salaries.

Worse still, the argument under Article 10 is much stronger, IMHO, than any argument arising under Article 5 since Article 5's language by its own terms only applies to the legislature, whereas if you'll look at the bolded text above, the language under Article 10 applies to municipalities.

The city's essentially arguing that the Article 5 "single subject" rule applies to municipalities in light of the fact that the Constitution, at least by its own terms makes no provision whatsoever for it applying to municipalities. The city seems to be envisioning some bizzaro-land Supreme Court opinion coming down the pike which would interpret this meaning in while completely ignoring the much more realistic issue that under Article 10, Section 19, something which by its own terms specifically does apply to the city doesn't really mean what it says.

-- tough sell, imho.

That said, I've got my own view of this thing.. maybe there's another. It's not like I've researched this issue as if I was being paid to do it, so I might be missing something. It'd sure as heck be a lot more comforting though if those city attorneys who are actually being paid to research this stuff would cite something specific, because otherwise, the city wanting this vague language for no other reason than the fact that it wants vague language is unsettling indeed.

[Blazerfan11]

Another new site by tax payer subsidized Chamber of Commerce. Fantastic.

[LakeEffect]

Another new site by tax payer subsidized Chamber of Commerce. Fantastic.

You say that like it costs thousands of dollars... I just renewed a URL for $17.00, and I created the site for free... Plus, we all know that the Chamber isn't only funded via City contract/agreement. They have dues and donations. What about the poor firefighters who might actually support Maps 3 and have to see their union dues go to supporting the anti-Maps campaign?

[Tier2City]

Talk about not ready for primetime.

I wonder why the Chamber hasn't put their name on the new site... a site without credits is unreliable...

Yeah, I really don't like to have to root through the WHOIS database just to figure out who owns an anonymous website.

The Chamber not bothering to put their name on the site really doesn't help the credibility problem - at a time when that's desperately needed. Amateurish is one term, others spring to mind. What on earth is going to shake them out of their complacency and take this campaign seriously? And stop patronizing the voters' intelligence?

Just looking at Infrastructure "Facts," can anyone get to "more than a billion dollars of programs passed in 2007"?

• $517,250,000 earmarked for infrastructure products by the 2007 bond program"
• "$89,755,000 for Parks and Recreational facilities"
• "In addition, voters also approved a $180 million bond issue to fund additional projects within Oklahoma City Public School District I-89."

What am I missing?

I wouldn't even mind if they had spun it as close to a billion.

[Doug Loudenback]

If there were only someone out there. Someone with the skills, knowledge, ability, and the integrety to do a comparision of the two sites, that would be great. (hint, hint.)

Like I said, I have too much news catching up to get done to go very far with this, but I did check to see who owns the domain name -- web sites that don't show up front who the owners/operators are aren't my cup of tea. From WhoIs Search Results it is the Chamber. Some detail:

Domain ID157570697-LROR
Domain Name:MAPSFACTS.ORG
Created On:11-Nov-2009 23:36:05 UTC
Last Updated On:11-Nov-2009 23:36:11 UTC
Expiration Date:11-Nov-2010 23:36:05 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:43783003-NSIV
Registrant Name:Loyce Turner
Registrant Organization:Greater OKC Chamber

Whoops! On Edit, I see at the bottom of at least one web page there, it does indeed say, "Paid for by the YES for MAPS Coalition" ... so the website is not unattributed as I initially said, above.

[okcpulse]

Very first problem I see on that site: "Facts: This MAPS proposal is structured the same as previous MAPS proposals and for good reason."

No, it most certainly is not structured the same as previous MAPS proposals.. Do they think we can't go back and look at the previous ballots?

All that site does for me is solidify the FACT that the city is lying to the citizens in order to get a blank check with no oversight and no guarantees about what will be worked on or where the money will actually be used.

No. The project itself is structured the same. But there is a state law against rolling multiple projects onto one ballot. Thus, OKC had to follow state law this time and reword the proposal. So unless you want a court challenge, the ballot will have to be worded as such.

The reason why OKC got away with it before... it was a simple oversight on state law. No one checked to make sure it was legal, but no one challanged it because it didn't occur to anyone to look up the statutes.

[Doug Loudenback]

I found this letter at :: MAPS Facts :: to be interesting:

[Tier2City]

Whoops! On Edit, I see at the bottom of at least one web page there, it does indeed say, "Paid for by the YES for MAPS Coalition" ... so the website is not unattributed as I initially said, above.

Well they only just got that up there now (along with Opposition Facts and the leaked FOP letter), so at least they figured that out and reduced that particular ownership sketchiness level.

How long before they correct at least the infrastructure "facts"?

[jpeaceokc]

I was just watching Channel 4 and they ran a story on the difference in the Ballots. Basically it is illegal to do it the same way we did in 1993 where each element is "spelled out".

It's only illegal if the bundle all the projects into one ballot proposition. It would be completely legal if each project was listed as a separate ballot proposition. This would be a truly democratic way to do this. The present method is known as "log-rolling", all the projects bundled into one proposition. It is legal only because we are not voting to bind the city to these projects, we are voting only to give the city the authority to keep the tax and spend the money on whatever it wants. The MAPS 3 resolution is non-binding, and could be changed at any time by this or a future Council.

A better way would have been to list each project as a separate ballot proposition. Then the citizens could be assured that the projects would be completed, and would be allowed a complete say as to which projects should be completed.

People are saying "we should trust the City". I'm saying, "The City should trust the people to decide about these projects, individually, not as a log-rolled package."