Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

[TheSteveHunt]

It wont delay the vote. Recall that the Supreme Court rushed my case through very quickly so as not to delay the council elections.

[TheSteveHunt]

City either hasn't responded yet or the site isn't updated. If anyone is interested the case number is:

O-118271

[Laramie]

OKC says Shadid doesn’t like ‘politics’ of MAPS

By Chris Casteel
Staff writer ccasteel@oklahoman.com

Oklahoma City’s new proposal for tax-funded projects doesn’t violate the state’s constitutional prohibition against multiple subjects in legislation and the city isn't bound by that provision in any case, the city told the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

[Laramie]

Shadid asks top court to hear MAPS objections

By William Crum
Staff writer wcrum@oklahoman.com

A bid to block enactment of MAPS 4 may come down to a determination of whether assembly of the 16 projects was a case of coalition-building or voter coercion.

[David]

What's the sourcing on that? I hope it's not the full text of an article from the Oklahoman.

[Laramie]

What's the sourcing on that? I hope it's not the full text of an article from the Oklahoman.

Both articles are full text from the Oklahoman related to MAP 4 as noted at the top; Chris Casteel & William Crum, both writers give some insight from both sides.

[TheSteveHunt]

You know it is getting serious when you hear anything about anything like this in this disgraceful News desert.

[catch22]

Both articles are from the Oklahoman related to MAP 4 as noted at the top; Chris Casteel & William Crum, both gives some insight from both sides.

The Oklahoman does not appreciate the posting of full articles, but rather a paragraph or two with a link to the article on their site.

[Laramie]

The Oklahoman does not appreciate the posting of full articles, but rather a paragraph or two with a link to the article on their site.

You're citing what Steve Lackmeyer said about his articles for which I respect & adhere to his view. I subscribe to the Oklahoman.

Patrons who don't subscribe to the Oklahoman will not be able to view these links.

When you begin the practice of a paragraph or two (Some articles are just a paragraph; some are more); then you run the risk of leaving out important facts & information. Just trying to get information out so voters will be able to make an informed decision.

[David]

Patrons who don't subscribe to the Oklahoman will not be able to view these links.

Yes, that is the point. It's their content, and as far as I am aware they have not given OKC Talk permission for any rehosted content like this.

[Pete]

Yes, please don't post their full articles.

Thanks.

[Laramie]

Yes, please don't post their full articles.

Thanks.

Got it...

[Pete]

Just learned the OK Supreme Court ruled against Shadid's challenge.

Have not seen it yet, but looks like MAPS4 is free to go forward.

[chuck5815]

Just learned the OK Supreme Court ruled against Shadid's challenge.

Have not seen it yet, but looks like MAPS4 is free to go forward.

hopefully the People are smart enough to vote against this one. there is a lot of unfunded liability built into this particular round.

and of course Holt doesn't care. he'll be in Inhofe's seat when the bill comes due.

[Tydude]

https://oklahoman.com/article/564405...animous-ruling

[David]

The supreme court is the deciding authority, looks like this MAPS is constitutional and I suspect so were all the others. I'm kinda glad we now have precedent for this, it nicely defangs the question going forward.

Shadid's attorney, Jay Barnett, said he was discussing with Shadid whether to petition the court for a rehearing.

That will be a waste of money if they try, the court isn't going to reverse their own unanimous decision.

[Midtowner]

It's up on OSCN. This was the point I think lost on Shadid. The tax isn't allocated directly for the purpose of building X or Y. It's for the purpose of capital projects, a provisional list we have, but subject to change by the Council. Except that having a provisional list of goals for the tax, it's just like every other excise tax. .25% goes to the Zoo, what the Zoo does with that is up to the Zoo Trust. If it were to increase to .35% and was marketed as an increase for the creation of a downtown aquarium which would have more than one exhibit, same result.

I'm also glad he challenged this law because at least now we know. That's why at the end of the day, I like Shadid and would support him for City Council again, even though I agree with him almost none of the time. The Council shouldn't be a rubber stamp and having to answer tough questions only makes us better.

[Pete]

^

Keep in mind that they changed MAPS specifically due to this law and the real threat of someone contesting it. So, highly likely if this had been challenged before the ruling would have been quite different.

[David]

Did they, though? I remember it being stated somewhere on here that they changed it this time around due to the endowment plans in this MAPS requiring slightly different language. Is there any proof that the current language is a result of edits from the MAPS 3 language for more constitutional soundness?

[Midtowner]

They threatened to challenge MAPS III and I think MAPS III was written in the same manner as MAPS IV. David Slane had threatened to challenge MAPS III, but ended up passing on it.

[Pete]

They threatened to challenge MAPS III and I think MAPS III was written in the same manner as MAPS IV. David Slane had threatened to challenge MAPS III, but ended up passing on it.

Right. MAPS 3 was the one where they completely changed the wording and for MAPS 4 they just tweaked it.

[soonerguru]

LOL. What a waste of time and money. Unanimously rejected by the State Supreme Court. Not unconstitutional. Next.

[emtefury]

One thing I learned from the lawsuit that I did not realize is the MAPS 4 tax is considered a general revenue tax. The city can collect the taxes and do whatever they want with it. There is no commitment of tax dollars to any of the projects. They could spend all $900M on one project if the city wanted to. Another reason to vote no...I was already a no vote.

Another note, MAPS 4 is not popular is the SW/NW OKC (Yukon and Mustang area). This is one of the highest income areas of the city and our streets and infrastructure are terrible. This is the general consensus I am hearing. I know there is a MAPS for streets, but the general mindset is fix the infrastructure before we throw another $900M into the part of the city that we don't live near and will may never use (like the waterpark).

[TheTravellers]

One thing I learned from the lawsuit that I did not realize is the MAPS 4 tax is considered a general revenue tax. The city can collect the taxes and do whatever they want with it. There is no commitment of tax dollars to any of the projects. They could spend all $900M on one project if the city wanted to. Another reason to vote no...I was already a no vote....

I believe all MAPS were that way, it was just trust by the citizens in the city government that they'd do the right thing, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So far, they've pretty much done what they said they were going to do with the money. Yes, there were exceptions, but none too huge to distrust the whole concept.

[d-usa]

Ed Shadid campaigned on that fact, which he forgot when he filed suit.