Maps 4 Neighborhoods

[OSUFan]

Explain your reasoning. Those neighborhoods need the most help right now.

I just don't see a practical or realistic approach (but I'm definitely open to suggestions).

1.) How do you pick what neighborhoods get the investment that appeases everyone?

2.) Even if you come up with a list how do you get the people in OKC who live nowhere near there to vote to spend their money on taxes in neighborhoods that they never visit?

[hoya]

The problem is "size of the project area", and there is no amount of money that can over come that. This isn't just true of MAPS money, but eventually the City's general fund as well. I always think if OKC was developed at the same density as European cities all 1.3 million metro residents would live within 3 miles of MBG. Does one realize from a tax liability perspective how easily a city that size could be maintained - especially on a per-capita basis. But OKC isn't so we will have to accept that some places (and by some, I mean many) will get neglected. It is just how we chose to develop post WWII.

Well, the truth is, you need to have a balance. We had cheap gasoline for decades, and I think it's rather narrow-minded to ignore that advantage. The US experienced record growth in the post-WWII era. The ability to rapidly build cheap housing on inexpensive land allowed people who would never be able to afford homes in a European city to purchase them in American cities.

Is it sustainable forever? Oh, of course not. Eventually distance becomes a huge limiting factor. The problem American cities have had is they went all-in with the suburban solution. The problem isn't having T3 development, even extensive T3 development. The problem is that it spread so far and so fast that people have just been abandoning a lot of the old suburbs.

The solution for OKC is to redevelop the central core, and simultaneously stop the next wave of sprawl. We can't abandon the suburbs, there are too many people out there and too much money. But we shouldn't pretend that everything is hunky-dory and that building tracts of houses on the NW side of Lake Hefner is somehow fiscally responsible. The city is going to continue to grow in population -- if we can get that population to reinvest in existing neighborhoods within the city, and develop better urban neighborhoods, I think OKC of 2040 will be a lot healthier and more financially sound than OKC of 2015.

Sprawl is like a McDonald's extra value meal. It's cheap, it tastes pretty good, sometimes it just hits the spot. But if that's all you eat, you're going to have a lot of problems.

[jerrywall]

It seems to me that general civic improvement and construction projects, things to raise the standard for the whole city (such as public transport, public safety, health, etc) make more sense than trying to create maps projects to benefit specific neighborhoods. More businesses, more residents, and more infill and density will generate more revenue and then going forward those increased revenues can be used for more specific street and neighborhood projects. It also seems more sellable to the voting base.

[Just the facts]

So MAPS for street repairs? They are going to need a lot more than a 1 cent tax.

[Teo9969]

Explain your reasoning. Those neighborhoods need the most help right now.

Because in most of those neighborhoods, the values of those home are so far away from being what they once were, which means they are never going to attract a diverse range of incomes. Only the poor, people starting out their economic lives, landlords, and older people who have been in the neighborhood are going to buy in these areas for the next 15 years. These areas are already decidedly poor, and they're only going to become poorer. Couple that with the fact that there will never be the kinds of amenities in the area necessary to draw in families, young professionals, and successful business people the end result is we'd literally be throwing money in the garbage.

We can put sidewalks in, but we can't make people invest in their homes (especially when many are absentee landlords…something you can see in the inner-loop right now: On one street you'll have 3 or 4 beautiful houses paired with a vacant house that is completely overgrown and clearly dilapidated.

And that's in an area that *has* amenities, that is already receiving private money investment along with public improvements.

The reason is simple: The ROI is TERRIBLE. The ROI of the Arena has been unreal. We can't be that far away from having paid off the arena already, and that was about a $200M project overall, and it's been a major piece in the entire city having pride for where they live.

Sidewalks in residential areas isn't going to move any needles. And the problem that I have with this whole discussion to begin with is that some people think Blue Stem is a neighborhood. It's not. The "neighborhood" is essentially from County Line to Meridian and Expressway to Memorial. And similarly large areas throughout the entire city. If you want to identify 4 of those, maybe one in each quadrant, and go from there. I'm fine with that.

I wanna say I would be okay with pouring $200M into Rockwell Ave between Hefner and 122nd, but it would require that the city takes an active role in changing the way the game has been played for a long time: Changing zoning laws, requiring density, encouraging multi-modal transportation, creating BID and specific taxations on the area that funnel into the improvement of the area. What's sad, is that I can fathom $200M not being enough money to drastically improve a single mile of street. I think the area is closer to $1B out from becoming a sustainable and compelling place to live. Again, maybe if we can get some bigger business to occupy the center of the neighborhood/district/area then we'd have a start.

When I look at this picture, keeping in mind that the PCN area is one of the nicer areas of OKC-Proper, I really struggle to see much hope:

[Pete]

The irony of all this "MAPS 4 public works" type of talk is that the MAPS sales tax surtax actually has kept OKC's overall sales tax artificially low, and sales tax is what drives public safety and public services.

OKC's sales tax is at or below most the surrounding communities WITH the MAPS surcharge. So, I think it's safe to say OKC's sales tax would be another $.01 higher if there hadn't been MAPS all these years.

So, by removing MAPS and allowing the OKC sales tax to seek it's proper level, almost all that incremental sales tax revenue would go to services and safety.

Also, several TIF districts siphon off incremental sales tax from the same recipients, and several more programs in the the works.


Oklahoma State Sales Tax 4.5% +
Norman 3.5%
Moore 3.75%
Edmond 3.75%
Midwest City 3.85%
OKC 3.875% (includes 1% MAPS surcharge)
Yukon 4%
Mustang 4%
Bethany 4%
Warr Acres 4%

[Just the facts]

We don't need MAPS for Neighborhoods to fix these problems, we need arrondissements. OKC is too big for a one size fits all solution to these issues.

[mkjeeves]

But I won't vote for a MAPS that is going to pour money into neighborhoods built between 1940 and 1975 (maybe later by the time the actual vote rolls around). And I won't vote for a MAPS that fails to build on the success of what we've already built in the core.

That's basically everything between the two circles more or less, except you reserve the right to exclude everything outside the outer circle too. In other words, you only support spending money in the inner circle.

Give us your money and go rot is a plan. Maybe that will be on the next Maps (Not for Neighborhoods) advertisements.

[Just the facts]

This whole concept is ridiculous and at this point I am content to let the supporters reach that conclusion on their own.

[Teo9969]

That's basically everything between the two circles more or less, except you reserve the right to exclude everything outside the outer circle too. In other words, you only support spending money in the inner circle.

Give us your money and go rot is a plan. Maybe that will be on the next Maps (Not for Neighborhoods) advertisements.

That map is not even close to accurate.

[Teo9969]

The irony of all this "MAPS 4 public works" type of talk is that the MAPS sales tax surtax actually has kept OKC's overall sales tax artificially low, and sales tax is what drives public safety and public services.

OKC's sales tax is at or below most the surrounding communities WITH the MAPS surcharge. So, I think it's safe to say OKC's sales tax would be another $.01 higher if there hadn't been MAPS all these years.

So, by removing MAPS and allowing the OKC sales tax to seek it's proper level, almost all that incremental sales tax revenue would go to services and safety.

Also, several TIF districts siphon off incremental sales tax from the same recipients, and several more programs in the the works.


Oklahoma State Sales Tax 4.5% +
Norman 3.5%
Moore 3.75%
Edmond 3.75%
Midwest City 3.85%
OKC 3.875% (includes 1% MAPS surcharge)
Yukon 4%
Mustang 4%
Bethany 4%
Warr Acres 4%

I would be fine with OKC's overall rate hitting 10%.

4.5% State
3% General Fund (.5% to 1% allocated to Capital Projects upon vote, aka MAPS)
1.125% Public Safety
1.125% RTA (County Tax?)
0.125% Zoo

[krisb]

I'd say it's pretty accurate in that the neighborhoods just beyond the inner loop were all built in the post-war era. I'm convinced those neighborhoods could make a comeback given the right mix of public-private investments. Heck, if every neighborhood in OKC was a comfortable walk away from a park and mixed use development then the property values would increase. The fringe of Nichols Hills proper is a lot of postwar housing. Those homes have character and potential if people choose to invest in them. My modest 1950s neighborhood is about to get new streets and sidewalks, we are across the street from Will Rogers Park, and close to tons of shopping. The potential is there. When millenials start getting priced out of downtown and the urban core the next best thing will be the inner-ring suburbs.

[Laramie]

There are improvements needed in all neighborhoods. We do need to address the concerns of our neighborhoods (MAPS 4 Neighborhood) as we did with our schools with MAPS for Kids.

MAPS IV collection 2017 - 2024 (7 years - $700 million).

There are eight wards. MAPS IV could provide $50 million for each of the 8 wards ($400 million)--those wards decide where they want the $50 million spent.

As the first $400 million is generated; it goes in that particular Wards' trust or account until total is collected. The $300 million (includes $50 million contingency fund) of the final collection years could be used for other projects throughout the city.

Meanwhile, each Ward could work with their council representatives to plan how that money should be spent. The neighborhoods would have $400 million; the city would have that final $300 million to use as needed.

[Just the facts]

I like the self-governing Ward idea, and not just for MAPS, but for everyday governance. So let me ask you Laramie, what Ward do you live in and how would you spend your $50 million share? Be specific if you can.

[Urbanized]

...Heck, if every neighborhood in OKC was a comfortable walk away from a park and mixed use development then the property values would increase...

You make it sound so easy..."heck"...like it's the very LEAST that could/should be done. I honestly think people throw out ideas like this without considering scale, at all. Remaking OKC like that - touching EVERY neighborhood - would of course be great. But it would also cost billions and take decades. It's not something that could be accomplished with a MAPS-sized project.

Spreading the MAPS approach throughout the city sounds great in theory and may even work in practice, but people would need to understand that they can't get the same bang for their buck that they've had in previous iterations, which were designed to build game-changers that ostensibly benefit the ENTIRE community. A city-wide implementation would have to consist of mostly small, incremental changes and improvements, not dramatic ones. The city is just too big, geographically.

That's why I think if a new MAPS reaches beyond the inner city it should concentrate on key corridors, with the hope that adjoining neighborhoods and commercial properties build upon that momentum with private investment.

[Just the facts]

For every neighborhood to be within walking distance (0.5 miles) of a mixed-use commercial district we would need to build a shload of new mixed-use commercial centers. Some homes are a half-mile from the enterance to their own subdivision thanks to a dendritic street network.

[David]

That's why I think if a new MAPS reaches beyond the inner city it should concentrate on key corridors, with the hope that adjoining neighborhoods and commercial properties build upon that momentum with private investment.

That's not a bad plan if you could get it passed, but it also feels like it comes pre-packaged with reasons for people to vote no. Why should someone who lives or works or owns a business outside those key corridors vote yes when their only expectation for something that would directly effect them is theoretical future momentum?

[hoya]

We can't rely on MAPS to fix every problem the city has. I don't want MAPS to be used for things the city normally pays for. That's not why it exists. If you start using it to fix roads or put in new street lights, that money is going to vanish in an instant. You'll see no benefit from it.

I don't think that just sprinkling a few things here and there in different neighborhoods will give you the same "bang for your buck". The canal, the ballpark, the river improvements, the Ford Center, these are all major improvements to the city. The new central park, the streetcar, the river rapids, and (yes) the convention center, these are all major improvements. They aren't just major, they're transformative. They've changed the city's perception of itself, and changed (to a degree) the nation's perception of us. You can't ask for a bigger return than we've gotten.

A MAPS for Neighborhoods program could theoretically work, maybe, but we'd need to have a lot more concrete ideas than what we've seen in the video. Right now it's way too vague.

[Laramie]

I like the self-governing Ward idea, and not just for MAPS, but for everyday governance. So let me ask you Laramie, what Ward do you live in and how would you spend your $50 million share? Be specific if you can.

I toggle back & forth from My house (where oldest son/grandson reside) in Ward 6 and my duplex in Ward 4 (live on one side/rent other side); registered to vote in Ward 4.

What would I do with that $50 million?


Upgraded street lighting, planters (areas like neighborhoods in Stockyard City area, Gatewood, Paseo), park improvements (family friendly) a few more upgraded park community centers with the emphasis on additions to baseball, soccer & football fields where feasible. More neighborhood sidewalks, lighting where needed. Nice decor entrances to Ward 6: Stockyard City, Gatewood & Paseo and Ward 4: Oak Cliff and improvements to Draper Lake, picnic areas, restrooms & camping facilities etc.

Would like to hear about ideas from other neighbors in those two areas (Wards 4 & 6).

[Urbanized]

We can't rely on MAPS to fix every problem the city has. I don't want MAPS to be used for things the city normally pays for. That's not why it exists. If you start using it to fix roads or put in new street lights, that money is going to vanish in an instant. You'll see no benefit from it.

I don't think that just sprinkling a few things here and there in different neighborhoods will give you the same "bang for your buck". The canal, the ballpark, the river improvements, the Ford Center, these are all major improvements to the city. The new central park, the streetcar, the river rapids, and (yes) the convention center, these are all major improvements. They aren't just major, they're transformative. They've changed the city's perception of itself, and changed (to a degree) the nation's perception of us. You can't ask for a bigger return than we've gotten.

A MAPS for Neighborhoods program could theoretically work, maybe, but we'd need to have a lot more concrete ideas than what we've seen in the video. Right now it's way too vague.

That's why I personally think it should possibly be allowed to expire, as it did in '99 (and remained for about a year and a half). I don't think MAPS should be a tax in search of projects, but rather a way of funding truly transformative projects that have community-wide benefit, as they present themselves. Honestly I think the next project fitting that definition will probably be transit-oriented.

And please note: "community wide benefit" has nothing to do with putting a project in every neighborhood, and just because your specific neighborhood wasn't touched doesn't mean a project doesn't benefit you, as some continue to preach here regarding previous versions of MAPS. This idea that projects like the ballpark, arena, Civic Center, central library, canal, river, fairgrounds etc only benefit downtowners (or was even built primarily for them) is wrong-headed poppycock.

[Teo9969]

I just think people don't realize how little $1B actually is when you reach the city-scale.

Private dollars absolutely dwarf public dollars.

OKC is an economy of $439 Billion dollars over the span of the life of MAPS 3. We're using not even $1B in MAPS 3…We budgeted ~0.18% of "GDP" for MAPS...

[Just the facts]

I toggle back & forth from My house (where oldest son/grandson reside) in Ward 6 and my duplex in Ward 4 (live on one side/rent other side); registered to vote in Ward 4.

What would I do with that $50 million?


Upgraded street lighting (areas like neighborhoods in Stockyard City area, Gatewood, Paseo), park improvements (family friendly) a few more upgraded park community centers with the emphasis on additions to baseball, soccer & football fields where feasible. More neighborhood sidewalks, lighting where needed. Nice decor entrances to Ward 6: Stockyard City, Gatewood & Paseo and Ward 4: Oak Cliff and improvements to Draper Lake, picnic areas, restrooms & camping facilities etc.

Would like to hear about ideas from other neighbors in those two areas (Wards 4 & 6).

Let's start with the street light. The only numbers I could quickly find were from the City of Santa Monica and they say about $5,000 per street light install in residential areas. I assume busy roads and commercial areas will be higher, but who knows, so we can use the $5,000 figure. You can have 10,000 street lights; how many do you want for Ward 4?

[Urbanized]

If you're going to include JUST parks, you'd probably do best to concentrate on a few key regional parks, such as Lincoln, Will Rogers, Earlywine, Trosper, etc.. Otherwise you probably couldn't even install sidewalks in all 120+ OKC parks for the price of MAPS, and even all of THOSE parks certainly don't touch every (or even most..?) neighborhoods in OKC. The scale of the city is truly massive.

[hoya]

To be the city we want it to be, there need to be some big changes. MAPS only covers a small part of those.

1) We need to stop the bleeding. Stop expanding farther out. Like immediately. We're only making the problem worse by continuing to build neighborhoods farther and farther away.
2) We need to combine sidewalks, street lights, bike trails, and normal neighborhood improvements with street repairs. So whenever we'd normally go in and repave a street, we make sure we include bike lanes and sidewalks and all that stuff at the same time. This will be a very gradual process, but in 25 years we'll get there. Overall this is part of incremental improvement -- making sure that when we do something, we do it right.
3) We need to develop a mass transit system for the entire metro area, with transit-oriented development. We could fund some of that with MAPS, if necessary.

[Just the facts]

To give one an idea of the scale and cost, Project 180 is over $170 million and it doesn't even cover 1 sq mile. It is economic realities like this that me reconsider everything I thought about City Planning 7 years ago.