New MAPS Website- MAPS Facts.org

[FritterGirl]

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received.

I think that's the smartest formula anyone has come up with to date!

[betts]

from: tom.anderson@okc.gov

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

I agree that the math works out very nicely to $10 per person per month, recognizing that many people pay more and many pay less. However, I am curious as to why sales tax paid by businesses inside Oklahoma City was not factored into this equation. Is there a sales tax rebate for all city businesses which I am not aware of? I suspect Devon and Chesapeake buy enough equipment annually to almost dwarf what we mortals are capable of spending.

[Larry OKC]

Thank heavens he had no effect on the last vote, when the same misinformation was being spread. What I don't understand is why, if their cause is just, the truth isn't enough.

oooops, looks like he posted the source material after your post. Agree with the last part completely. I have wondered the same thing about misinformation/misleading information is put out by the pro-side (City/Chamber) as well.

[betts]

oooops, looks like he posted the source material after your post. Agree with the last part completely. I have wondered the same thing about misinformation/misleading information is put out by the pro-side (City/Chamber) as well.

Personally, I think everyone should avoid misleading information. One has to be a jack-of-all-trades to try and figure out what the truth is, and I stopped taking math at trigonometry. While I think that the MAPS proposals definitely have an economic impact, I think their psychic impact is as important, and perhaps that's what needs to be focused on.

[Spartan]

I think the dollars and cents speak for themselves. If we invest public resources downtown, we get an outstanding private return. I'm all for getting an outstanding return in private investment.

http://www.okcchamber.com/media/PDFs...iveSummary.pdf

$5 billion impact of MAPS.

[Midtowner]

from: tom.anderson@okc.gov

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

So even going by these numbers (I still find $1,000 per month spending [which is what's required to collect $10.00 worth of a 1% sales tax]by the 'average' OKC citizen to be dubious at best), you're still off by over $500 or over 50% with your single payer number. The "family of four" information doesn't appear here, so I need not address it.

Again, simple math:

7 3/4 years = 7.75 * 12months = 93 months worth of tax @ $10/month = $930 overall cost.

What am I missing? Are you expecting spending per citizen to drastically increase? For inflation to spike at about 300%? Again, simple math proves you wrong; and the numbers don't lie.

Maybe you have a different source? I'll be happy to give you a mulligan.

[DavidGlover]

You really must not have seen or remember the video Midtowner. I say it will be about $1000 average for an OKC citizen. It is less than 2 minutes - surely you can handle it. Google can help you with the math. (777 000 000 / 550 000) * .7 = 988.909091 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[betts]

Is it really that simplistic? No. There's nothing factored in for sales taxes from any other sources besides private individuals. Who keeps Office Depot afloat? Not private individuals. How many reams of paper, boxes of envelopes, printers, computers, etc, etc do you think Devon and Chespeake alone purchase annually? Does Office Depot collect sales tax? As far as I know, they do. If I'm wrong, would someone mind correcting me?

[Midtowner]

You really must not have seen or remember the video Midtowner. I say it will be about $1000 average for an OKC citizen. It is less than 2 minutes - surely you can handle it. Google can help you with the math. (777 000 000 / 550 000) * .7 = 988.909091 777,000,000/550000*.7 - Google Search

Really David? What does the opening CG say? I even gave you an opportunity to change your story. You turned that down.

$1,500/person. Then later on you do change it to $4,000 for a family of four.

So which time were you lying? The time you said $1,500/person or $1,000/person? Just the first time?

[DavidGlover]

Are you really this dense - watch the video and listen to the words - they are not so big, you should understand them the $1500 and the $1000 has a percentage between them of 30%. All that part of the video is a explanation of Tom Anderson's statement. The way you are acting makes me think you may have some vested interest in MAPS 3 passing - is that the case? Tell me you understand the concept of a screen grab of a video and that surely you know there is content before and after the picture and only a moron would think that the picture in time is the only thing that is being said. So do you understand or..... Name what is wrong in the video and what I have said, it is all consistent with Tom, the City and the Chamber.

[Larry OKC]

Personally, I think everyone should avoid misleading information. One has to be a jack-of-all-trades to try and figure out what the truth is, and I stopped taking math at trigonometry. While I think that the MAPS proposals definitely have an economic impact, I think their psychic impact is as important, and perhaps that's what needs to be focused on.

You got me there...mine was college algebra...basically if it involves more than the basics (add/subtract/multiply/divide) it gets risky for me...when I do any of the math, perform it 3 or 4 times, just to make sure...and even then sometimes something goes wonky...LOL

Perhaps and it is a lot harder to refute something based on emotional, warm-n-fuzzies...people's emotions are valid to them...when hard numbers and facts are involved, they are much easier to defend/refute.

[Larry OKC]

I think the dollars and cents speak for themselves. If we invest public resources downtown, we get an outstanding private return. I'm all for getting an outstanding return in private investment.

http://www.okcchamber.com/media/PDFs...iveSummary.pdf

$5 billion impact of MAPS.

Please understand I am not taking issue with your post per se but with with the Chamber. Think I read that report before (will go back and read it again), but where is the $5 billion coming from? On the Chamber's website (Keep OKC Moving - Vote Yes for MAPS on December 8!) they have given 3 different amounts (2 on the same page)...$2B, $3B and now $5B. The $3B and $5B are both on the home page (the $5B in the first paragraph and the $3B in the "did you know" sidebar to the right) the $2B was the figure thrown around (think it was in the 1st version of the report). There is no frame of reference on the site for the numbers that might explain it (like they were years apart). Seems like it would be easier if they would pick one number and stick to it. Any of the numbers is impressive so why the apparent need to jack it up (and in some cases, apparently artificially, by including things like the I-40 relocation and the Memorial as part of MAPS).

I am not disputing any of the numbers they have thrown out there (but a recent Oklahoman article put the amount as "100s of millions" (obviously less than $1B).

Am curious, if the "return on investment" has been "10 fold" which loosely matches the $3B figure (think that was on the Chamber's MAPS 3 site or a quote from them in an article), where has all the money gone? By that, shouldn't this MAPS have already paid for itself and there not be any need for a MAPS 3 tax? Or at least a substantial down payment? A good investment (10 fold return sounds pretty good to me) should be your money making money for you.

But lets take the $5B figure as gospel. That is $5B of "forward momentum" that doesn't really seem to be slowing down any ($2B, then $3B then $5B) all in the past couple of years, all without a MAPS 3. Just don't see it going away, slowing down, or *gasp* stopping. Not to say that with MAPS 3 a similar 10 fold return couldn't happen as well (and that is what is being implied), the $777M becomes $8 billion (mol). At some point there is a diminishing rate of return, so that may be a stretch.

[Larry OKC]

If it's true that the ballot referred to the Ford Center as a convention center, especially with an actual convention center project elsewhere on the ballot, then that's pretty bad.

Dang, I was all set to pounce on this one...but in my repost of the original quoted text from the ballot, it got left out somehow so here they are again...

(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

And the Mayor's statement (the link originally provided no longer takes you to this quote). I got it from the Chamber's site but was in an Oklahoman article (sorry don't have which one marked):

“This investment will not only help us attract our own NBA franchise, but also will make us more desirable for bigger and better concerts, special events and conventions.”

Anyway, you did have me curious about what it said about the Myriad/Cox and it looks like I was mistaken (thinking the word "Convention" was added when they renamed it the Cox). Don't know if Convention was part of it's "official" name or not, always knew it as the "Myriad" just as most just call it the "Cox" now. But it does label it that way on the 1993 MAPS ballot:

(B)(4) The improvement of the Myriad Convention Center and/or related facilities;

Hmmm, what are the "related facilities"? LOL

Calling the park a request by Devon is just really erroneous on many counts.

I agree and as I said before I haven't seen anything that supports that claim either.

Wish I had the original MAPS Ordinance text but can't seem to locate it on the City's site. Am sure it had more details than the Ballot :-(

[betts]

But lets take the $5B figure as gospel. That is $5B of "forward momentum" that doesn't really seem to be slowing down any ($2B, then $3B then $5B) all in the past couple of years, all without a MAPS 3. Just don't see it going away, slowing down, or *gasp* stopping. Not to say that with MAPS 3 a similar 10 fold return couldn't happen as well (and that is what is being implied), the $777M becomes $8 billion (mol). At some point there is a diminishing rate of return, so that may be a stretch.

Obviously, again, I don't have the ability to confirm or refute the Chamber's numbers. But, for arguments sake, let's say the number isn't important. We know that MAPS stimulated all sorts of development and to me, the dollar amount is less important than the fact that it happened. Let's look at what is happening right now, and what might continue to happen (so, for arguments' sake we'll say momentum continues).

Broadway is developing nicely around Automobile Alley. There are more buildings that could be turned into retail or restaurants there. Let's say it happens. 9th Street still has a ways to go and some empty land, so we'll say that Mel's garage gets completed and the entire street is a destination. The presence of both Broadway and 9th street could well lead to more housing being built in that area. I seem to remember Bert Berlanger talking about wanting to do that in one of the meetings. So, I'll grant that it could happen, and probably will. There may development of some of the other side streets in that area as well, if numbers of people living there increases.

Deep Deuce will almost assuredly continue to fill in, albeit much more slowly than planned, due to the economy. Bricktown will hopefully have more businesses and restaurants move in, renewing buildings that are still under or unutilized.

The boathouses will be built along the river, as will the Native American cultural center. It is possible that, at the conjunction of Lincoln and the river, we would see some type of restaurant or entertainment venue constructed.

Film Row is developing nicely, and the construction of the Devon Tower and the streetscaping will give the entire southwestern portion of downtown a huge boost, no matter what happens, IMO.

Midtown will see more housing, and perhaps the addition of more restaurants. Maybe we'll even ultimately see some retail in that area.

Those are the things I see happening no matter whether MAPS passes or not, barring another economic turndown, so that's momentum that I see as fairly inevitable. I don't really see much else happening downtown if MAPS fails. They may get the boulevard built, but it will be a street. There will be no impetus to do anything south of it quickly, because the sheer size of the land there and the blight present there will make it risky to be some of the first businesses located there, and people will have no reason to go south of the boulevard.

What I see happening if MAPS 3 passes is very different:

If it passes, we will have street car lines planned even before it is built. We'll probably know where the stops will be. Developers will know that their businesses will be visible to everyone riding the streetcar, and I can see land along the line being snapped up well before it is even constructed.

We will, ultimately, know where the convention center will be built, and land will be purchased and clearing for the park will start, long before it's actually constructed. Again, when developers know that there will be a convention center and a park in those locations, people in the hotel and restaurant business, people wanting to build urban housing will be snapping land up and making plans. The existence of plans generates other plans.

People will know that grandstands are being built along the river. They will know that the number of river events will be increasing. There will be plans for restaurants, perhaps entertainment venues and perhaps even retail that appeals to people in water, running and biking sports.

MAPS passing, IMO, will create a mushroom of new development in new places, whereas if it doesn't pass, I see what we've already started continuing to grow and improve. It will make Core to Shore plans more visible to the people who, right now, aren't even paying attention to them. It will make the area between the CBD and the river a part of everyone's concept of "downtown". I think development could be huge.

That's my opinion, of course, and I'm sure the people voting against it think I'm wrong, or simply don't care.

[Spartan]

Alright Larry, nothing get's past you! That's a good way to be.

I was just stressing that while yes the loan is from Devon, so is the money in the first place, for the Myriad Gardens, which opposition has confused as a demand from Devon to make taxpayers build a $130 million park.

Not that we as citizens don't have a civic responsibility to match the investment being made by downtown stakeholders.

[Larry OKC]

Obviously, again, I don't have the ability to confirm or refute the Chamber's numbers. But, for arguments sake, let's say the number isn't important. We know that MAPS stimulated all sorts of development and to me, the dollar amount is less important than the fact that it happened. Let's look at what is happening right now, and what might continue to happen (so, for arguments' sake we'll say momentum continues).

Broadway is developing nicely around Automobile Alley. There are more buildings that could be turned into retail or restaurants there. Let's say it happens. 9th Street still has a ways to go and some empty land, so we'll say that Mel's garage gets completed and the entire street is a destination. The presence of both Broadway and 9th street could well lead to more housing being built in that area. I seem to remember Bert Berlanger talking about wanting to do that in one of the meetings. So, I'll grant that it could happen, and probably will. There may development of some of the other side streets in that area as well, if numbers of people living there increases.

Deep Deuce will almost assuredly continue to fill in, albeit much more slowly than planned, due to the economy. Bricktown will hopefully have more businesses and restaurants move in, renewing buildings that are still under or unutilized.

The boathouses will be built along the river, as will the Native American cultural center. It is possible that, at the conjunction of Lincoln and the river, we would see some type of restaurant or entertainment venue constructed.

Film Row is developing nicely, and the construction of the Devon Tower and the streetscaping will give the entire southwestern portion of downtown a huge boost, no matter what happens, IMO.

Midtown will see more housing, and perhaps the addition of more restaurants. Maybe we'll even ultimately see some retail in that area.

Those are the things I see happening no matter whether MAPS passes or not, barring another economic turndown, so that's momentum that I see as fairly inevitable. I don't really see much else happening downtown if MAPS fails. They may get the boulevard built, but it will be a street. There will be no impetus to do anything south of it quickly, because the sheer size of the land there and the blight present there will make it risky to be some of the first businesses located there, and people will have no reason to go south of the boulevard.

What I see happening if MAPS 3 passes is very different:

If it passes, we will have street car lines planned even before it is built. We'll probably know where the stops will be. Developers will know that their businesses will be visible to everyone riding the streetcar, and I can see land along the line being snapped up well before it is even constructed.

We will, ultimately, know where the convention center will be built, and land will be purchased and clearing for the park will start, long before it's actually constructed. Again, when developers know that there will be a convention center and a park in those locations, people in the hotel and restaurant business, people wanting to build urban housing will be snapping land up and making plans. The existence of plans generates other plans.

People will know that grandstands are being built along the river. They will know that the number of river events will be increasing. There will be plans for restaurants, perhaps entertainment venues and perhaps even retail that appeals to people in water, running and biking sports.

MAPS passing, IMO, will create a mushroom of new development in new places, whereas if it doesn't pass, I see what we've already started continuing to grow and improve. It will make Core to Shore plans more visible to the people who, right now, aren't even paying attention to them. It will make the area between the CBD and the river a part of everyone's concept of "downtown". I think development could be huge.

That's my opinion, of course, and I'm sure the people voting against it think I'm wrong, or simply don't care.

That was quite an impressive list and conclusion (in bold). That was my point and thanks for supplying the specifics beyond the Devon Tower and resulting 180 that I mentioned. Glad we are finally in agreement on this part. Next!

[Larry OKC]

Alright Larry, nothing get's past you! That's a good way to be....

Thanks (I think...LOL)

Ran across this along the way regarding the Fairgrounds improvements in MAPS 1 (sorry, didn't make note at the time where I got it):

Was to include a “...world class auction center to increase Oklahoma’ City’s ability to attract horse industry events. Other tax money would fund improvements to existing facilities.”

Not sure if we got that or not? Anyone know?

[Spartan]

There is an auction center at the Fairgrounds. I don't know about 'world class' though. There's a reason I'm apprehensive about throwing a ton of money into the Fairgrounds, but I'm sure that the Fairgrounds people are apprehensive about throwing a ton of money into them newfangled downtown thinga majiggers.

[Urban Pioneer]

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.

Since the issue regarding “spelling out” the ballot items has been so ardently debated, I am going to post this reasoning on multiple threads as it has been explained to me.

The “single-subject rule” means that you can’t list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1.

The State Legislature is bound to the single-subject rule by Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57 (“Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes….;”)

The single-subject rule is also generally applicable to municipal ordinances under 11 O.S. § 14-104 (“An ordinance may contain only one subject and the subject shall be expressed in its title.”) and specifically applicable to OKC ordinances under OKC Charter Art. II, § 25 (“No ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”)

But you’re thinking, “Okay, but these laws existed in 1993, so what has changed?” What has changed, or at least been clarified, is the Oklahoma Supreme Court interpretation of what “single-subject” means.

Since 1991, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued five legal opinions dealing the single-subject rule. A recent case containing maybe the clearest explanation of the objectives behind the single-subject rule, as declared and applied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, is Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 2009 OK 15.

In Fent, a single State act authorized issuance of revenues bonds to finance projects for the (1) Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, (2) the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and (3) the River Parks Authority. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶ 2. The bonds for the NACEA had already been issued, so Plaintiff Fent was not challenging those bonds; however, he was challenging and seeking to stop issuance of the bonds for the OCC and the RPA on the basis that the act authorizing such bonds was unconstitutional under Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57, the single-subject rule. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶¶ 2, 11.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Fent, striking down the State act as violative of the single-subject rule. I’ll let you look up the case if you want more details on the test for a finding of a single-subject violation, but suffice it to say, it’s pretty obvious MAPS 1 would have been struck down, if it had been challenged.

Now why would this interpretation of the single-subject rule would apply to municipalities? I think the most obvious response is “Why wouldn’t it?” As explained above, different “single-subject” provisions of Oklahoma law apply to the legislature and to cities, but they use the exact same language, have the exact same policy goals, and address the exact same issue. It is an immaterial fact that the Supreme Court was speaking in Fent v. State about a legislative act, and not a municipal act. There is no reason to believe the ruling is so narrow that it’s interpretation of “single-subject” applies only to one use of the phrase in Oklahoma law, but not to an identical usage elsewhere in Oklahoma statutes. To simply hope that the ruling was so inexplicably narrow would be folly, and there is no lawyer at City Hall that is willing to recommend a course of action so clearly reckless.

There is not really anything that I can add to this. Its seems to be the city counselor's interpretation.

[Midtowner]

Thanks for that explanation. I was aware of the Fent line of cases, but not the provisions under Title 11 and the Charter.

That all makes good sense. It seems there's a modicum of legal authority which supports the city's current course, but none as to whether they're just violating Article 10, Section 19 of the Constitution instead.

I'm sure our courts will get a chance to work this issue out either way. I'm glad our founders and framers had the foresight to tie government's hands when government wants something which the people do not.

[Doug Loudenback]

Since the issue regarding “spelling out” the ballot items has been so ardently debated, I am going to post this reasoning on multiple threads as it has been explained to me.

The “single-subject rule” means that you can’t list multiple projects on a single ballot, as was done with MAPS 1.

The State Legislature is bound to the single-subject rule by Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57 (“Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes….;”)

The single-subject rule is also generally applicable to municipal ordinances under 11 O.S. § 14-104 (“An ordinance may contain only one subject and the subject shall be expressed in its title.”) and specifically applicable to OKC ordinances under OKC Charter Art. II, § 25 (“No ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”)

But you’re thinking, “Okay, but these laws existed in 1993, so what has changed?” What has changed, or at least been clarified, is the Oklahoma Supreme Court interpretation of what “single-subject” means.

Since 1991, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued five legal opinions dealing the single-subject rule. A recent case containing maybe the clearest explanation of the objectives behind the single-subject rule, as declared and applied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, is Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 2009 OK 15.

In Fent, a single State act authorized issuance of revenues bonds to finance projects for the (1) Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, (2) the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and (3) the River Parks Authority. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶ 2. The bonds for the NACEA had already been issued, so Plaintiff Fent was not challenging those bonds; however, he was challenging and seeking to stop issuance of the bonds for the OCC and the RPA on the basis that the act authorizing such bonds was unconstitutional under Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 57, the single-subject rule. Fent, 2009 OK 15, ¶¶ 2, 11.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Fent, striking down the State act as violative of the single-subject rule. I’ll let you look up the case if you want more details on the test for a finding of a single-subject violation, but suffice it to say, it’s pretty obvious MAPS 1 would have been struck down, if it had been challenged.

Now why would this interpretation of the single-subject rule would apply to municipalities? I think the most obvious response is “Why wouldn’t it?” As explained above, different “single-subject” provisions of Oklahoma law apply to the legislature and to cities, but they use the exact same language, have the exact same policy goals, and address the exact same issue. It is an immaterial fact that the Supreme Court was speaking in Fent v. State about a legislative act, and not a municipal act. There is no reason to believe the ruling is so narrow that it’s interpretation of “single-subject” applies only to one use of the phrase in Oklahoma law, but not to an identical usage elsewhere in Oklahoma statutes. To simply hope that the ruling was so inexplicably narrow would be folly, and there is no lawyer at City Hall that is willing to recommend a course of action so clearly reckless.

There is not really anything that I can add to this. Its seems to be the city counselor's interpretation.

Seems like I've read those words somewhere before! Ha ha. You didn't reply to my e-mail about the message, about permission to quote. Let me know.

[Urban Pioneer]

Lol. Let me know if I'm penalized. Lol. I'll bring you some extra MAPS yard signs!

[Doug Loudenback]

Lol. Let me know if I'm penalized. Lol. I'll bring you some extra MAPS yard signs!

That would be great! The 3 I had in my front yard got swiped over the holiday weekend and I don't have my replacements yet! I think I'll put up 5 this time.