Give this man some hope. (MAPS related)

[Doug Loudenback]

None, not a one of them would pass, do you have a crystal ball?

Red Dirt might not have any, but I have quite a collection of them. Problem is, none of them work.

[Spartan]

When I think about the projects it seems to me that the park is a hard sell by itself but if included with a transit system and a convention center makes sense. Likewise I feel the same way about a transit system with the current downtown area and no park and current convention center. I do think we should have a new convention center but probably wouldn't support it without the park and the transit system.

I could imagine limiting MAPS 3 to just those projects. But I can understand the value of the other projects. I am very doubtful they could stand on their own though. So I have little trouble seeing them as part of this package. I do view all of these things as working together for the benefit of the entire community that makes up Oklahoma City.

They're all interconnected. Excellent point, flintysooner.

[MikeOKC]

They're all interconnected. Excellent point, flintysooner.

And I agree, very good point.

[RedDirt717]

None, not a one of them would pass, do you have a crystal ball?

No but it's something that was talked about in a policy class I took 3-4 years ago. It's a voting tendency that humans have. Like Duverger's law, the voting system put into place has a lot to do with the ultimate outcome of the vote.


With project policy, everyone has their favorite project and special interest groups dont really have enough money to push their project like a group effort campaign would. This means that smear campaigns would have a far easier time discrediting the projects in a divide and conquer approach.

The average voter would be so turned off of most of the projects that they would have one maybe two favorites that directly benefit them, and a large group those they don't care for. Shouldn't have to run the math on that to know that means that there would be far more no votes on every project than yes votes since the support would be concentrated.

You guys can day dream about alternatives to the blanket vote, but the reality is all, or nearly all of the projects would fail. Maybe a few would pass, but it's not likely.

[Larry OKC]

They're all interconnected. Excellent point, flintysooner.

But the problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, this all-or-nothing approach (to inter-connected but unrelated/not "like-kind" projects) is illegal. The "genius" (as some have described it) of MAPS, was that it was also illegal (but not challenged). The could have presented MAPS 3 in a legal fashion. They deliberately chose not to do so. Why? According to the Mayor, the Council decided to use the illegal all-or-nothing format because it is what voters are used to.

WTF? That's the excuse for doing it illegally? That doesn't bode well for the trust many are placing that everything is going to get done (even when there is NOTHING that binds them to do so).

Separate propositions, not necessarily 8 ones, but at least grouping "like-kind" ones together, similar to what was done in the 2007 General Obligation and School bond issues. 14 separate propositions in the GO bond and EVERY one of them passed easily. Same with the School bond issue. Can't remember which one (maybe both) but EVERY proposition passed something like 80%! No guarantee of course, there was the Tinker bond, where some props passed and some failed. If the Tinker one had been all-or-nothing, the unpopular ones may have easily pulled down the whole measure. If memory serves, the Tinker part barely passed.

Voters are used to separate proposition format too. Obviously, they don't get "confused" by having to vote on more than one thing.

[kevinpate]

If the NO side doesn't have a worthy opponent to send to a debate then what are the yes folks waiting on? I would think the lion would love the chance to slaughter a lamb.

Nope, sometimes they prefer tastier prey, or bigger prey. Sometimes, unlike some critters, a lion can even show mercy.

[Spartan]

But the problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, this all-or-nothing approach (to inter-connected but unrelated/not "like-kind" projects) is illegal. The "genius" (as some have described it) of MAPS, was that it was also illegal (but not challenged). The could have presented MAPS 3 in a legal fashion. They deliberately chose not to do so. Why? According to the Mayor, the Council decided to use the illegal all-or-nothing format because it is what voters are used to.

WTF? That's the excuse for doing it illegally? That doesn't bode well for the trust many are placing that everything is going to get done (even when there is NOTHING that binds them to do so).

That's not true. There is a binding resolution. You keep forgetting that. The binding resolution is what directs what the MAPS 3 tax will be used for. You're going to say that the resolution can be changed at any time, which is true, but let's be honest.. it isn't going to be changed by anyone who wants to be reelected.

As for MAPS not being legal, it was legal the first time, then state law banned omnibus propositions (which is stupid) so here we have the current format. Thanks to the new state law we can't do MAPS like we did the first one, instead we have to vaguely mention capital improvement projects and use a binding resolution as the backbone of the MAPS 3 plan instead.

So out one side of your mouth, Larry, you are arguing that MAPS 3 doesn't say anything specific about the projects, then you're saying that it's illegal out the other side of your mouth. Really what you want is to have the MAPS projects listed separately and voted on separately. You're never going to get that. MAPS is not a check one kind of proposition. It's not even a check 2 out of 3 kind of proposition. MAPS is an all of the above kind of proposition. The city moves together forward, either we have projects for everyone, or projects for nobody. Period. This is how we build a consensus as a community on moving forward.

[Larry OKC]

That's not true. There is a binding resolution. You keep forgetting that. The binding resolution is what directs what the MAPS 3 tax will be used for. You're going to say that the resolution can be changed at any time, which is true, but let's be honest.. it isn't going to be changed by anyone who wants to be reelected.

Sorry but as has been reported in the Oklahoman NewsOK
MAPS 3 ballot won’t detail individual projects (11/8/09) and several times on these boards, the Resolution of Intent is NON-BINDING.

The ordinance council members passed in September to set the Dec. 8 vote was bundled with a resolution outlining how to spend the $777 million the sales tax would be expected to generate. Resolutions are nonbinding and can be overturned by a city council vote.

The "bundled" part makes it sound like there is something in the Ballot/Ordinance that references the Resolution, there isn't. Not one mention or reference. There could have been, but there isn't. Since they are non-binding it doesn't even really matter if they can be over turned at a later date.

As for MAPS not being legal, it was legal the first time, then state law banned omnibus propositions (which is stupid) so here we have the current format. Thanks to the new state law we can't do MAPS like we did the first one, instead we have to vaguely mention capital improvement projects and use a binding resolution as the backbone of the MAPS 3 plan instead.

It doesn't really matter if it was a new state law, interpretation of an existing state law or State constitution or interpretation there of. Point is it is illegal to do it that way (stupid or not, that is the law). Backbone? How about spineless since the Resolution is not mentioned or even referenced in the Ballot/Ordinance? How does slapping an overly broad "capital improvement" label (to projects that aren't related, the C.C., Mass Trans, Fairgrounds, then the rest Health/Wellness) solve that? Seems to be an even more egregious violation, not less. It was illegal then but no one challenged it. This too was brought out in the Oklahoman article.

The first MAPS ballot in 1993 listed each of the proposed projects in a single-question, all-or-nothing proposition, but that ballot may have been improper, according to numerous attorneys. A state law commonly referred to as the single subject rule forbids cities from asking voters to approve one tax for multiple purposes. Voters must vote on tax-funded projects one project at a time. "Someone probably could have challenged the original MAPS as violating the single subject rule, but no one really did,” said City Attorney Kenny Jordan.

According to those in the know on these boards, by trying to solve the anti-log rolling part, they ran smack dab into the being specific part of the law. Although they used great verbiage there really isn't anything specific about the language in the Ballot/Ordinance (again, the resolution is NON-BINDING).

Here is what is defined as a capital improvement in the Ordinance 23,942:

§ 52-23.4. (c) For purposes of this section, the, term "City capital improvement" shall mean without limitation any one or more of the following:

(1) The acquisition of real or personal properties or any interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(2) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, finishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, or maintenance of City buildings, structures, fixtures, or personal properties or on any City real properties or interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(3) Any other type of beneficial or valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, or amelioration of or upon any real property, or any interest therein or appurtenances thereto, belonging to the City, intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it to new or further purposes.

It goes on list all the other ways the money can be spent, but the point of the above definition, is that very little wouldn't qualify.

So out one side of your mouth, Larry, you are arguing that MAPS 3 doesn't say anything specific about the projects, then you're saying that it's illegal out the other side of your mouth.

Thats all true, where is the one side, other side?

Really what you want is to have the MAPS projects listed separately and voted on separately.

Yes, of course, have said that all along. And it is the legal way to do it.

You're never going to get that. MAPS is not a check one kind of proposition. It's not even a check 2 out of 3 kind of proposition. MAPS is an all of the above kind of proposition. The city moves together forward, either we have projects for everyone, or projects for nobody. Period. This is how we build a consensus as a community on moving forward.

Why then do we have separate propositions on other ballots? Why was the 2007 bond issue set up with 14 separate propositions (with like-kind projects grouped together as one)? Why did ALL of the separate propositions pass easily? Why did we have separate propositions on the 2007 School Bond issue? Why did ALL of them pass easily? May have been one or both of those elections, but they passed with an 80% approval rate.

The intent of the single subject rule is to avoid combining unrelated projects in a ballot, which can force people to vote for something they may not support in order to get something they do support, Spiropoulos said. The city’s alternative to the all-or-nothing MAPS 3 ballot, Jordan said, was one that included each of the proposed projects as separate propositions requiring separate votes.

Why did they use the illegal all or nothing format again? Will let the Mayor answer that:

Mayor Mick Cornett has said council members decided against separate propositions for MAPS 3 projects because city voters are accustomed to the all-or-nothing approach, which was used for MAPS and MAPS for Kids.

Completely ignores the fact that the City uses the separate proposition format (with success). It completely ignores the fact that it is most likely illegal to do it with the all-or-nothing way.

[Doug Loudenback]

One of the things that I don't understand is why anyone here is still going to great lengths to try to make pernts, either way! Especially when they are all OLD PERNTS! I mean, is there anyone here who doubts that everyone here has already decided how they'll be voting tomorrow???

If one is looking for undecideds, one should probably be out knocking doors.

Why keep on keepin' on?

[Larry OKC]

Because as evidenced by Spartan's post, there is still misinformation going around.

[Doug Loudenback]

According to your theory, then, Larry, this discussion will never have an end and will go on indefinitely unless/until you are able to persuade everyone to agree with you or something like that. I'm kinda getting the idea that the possibility might not displease you. If you don't like what Spartan (or others) have to say, add him/them to your ignore post and find something else to obsess about. This particular dog is more than brutally dead. I say this humbly since I received a diagnosis back in 1981 from a respected health care professional (and one who I credit as being one of my life's benefactors ... those people you can count on the fingers of one hand) as being, "a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes to filter his sh*t in all sorts of possible ways." That diagnosis was in 1981. It was valid then and still is. I have possibly learned a bit about (a) when discussion becomes pointless, then why not stop? and (b) if it is pointless and I don't stop, then what does that say about me? There is a (c) and I'll leave that for you conjure the question and then answer it for yourself.

In the meantime, I've put in a frantic order for a silk-threaded noose so that when I hang myself (reference: movie Airplane) it won't hurt quite as much. I'm a pansy. Problem: delivery is estimated at 2 weeks. Uh oh, what's a mother to do?

And, yes, Spartan could do his part to end this endless cycle by stopping, too. Nothing to be gained. The MAPS 3 debate is done. Doesn't everyone get that fact?

[Spartan]

I'm not even going to read any of Larry's post because simple logic seems to be lost on him. Larry, I understand your obsessive need to make things seem right to you. I understand you're a pretty fair guy. I just don't agree with how overtly you dwell on semantics.

[flintysooner]

I say this humbly since I received a diagnosis back in 1981 from a respected health care professional (and one who I credit as being one of my life's benefactors ... those people you can count on the fingers of one hand) as being, "a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes to filter his sh*t in all sorts of possible ways." That diagnosis was in 1981. It was valid then and still is.

This actually made reading posts here this morning worthwhile all by itself.