New MAPS Website- MAPS Facts.org

[jpeaceokc]

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

There's a great line in 2012 -- "When the government tells you not to panic, THAT'S THE TIME TO PANIC!" I think that fits the situation -- when the government says "trust us", that's the time to start wondering what is going on.

And not everyone thinks the City Council has been doing such a great job over the last few years.

[andy157]

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

Doug, knowing what you know regarding documents, timeframes, dates, offers and counter-offers. Do you believe mapsfacts.org has put out all of the facts as they pertain to the FOP issue?

[PLANSIT]

Doug, knowing what you know regarding documents, timeframes, dates, offers and counter-offers. Do you believe mapsfacts.org has put out all of the facts as they pertain to the FOP issue?

If mapsfacts.org hasn't, you would think that if it were beneficial to them, the notthismaps folks would have.

[andy157]

If mapsfacts.org hasn't, you would think that if it were beneficial to them, the notthismaps folks would have.

I would hope they would, and if not, I think they should.

[kevinpate]

... Find one case which stands for the proposition that municipalities are subject to the single subject rule.
... All signs point to "no."

We're on the same page. I keep thinking though that surely someone who sold that gotta be this way notion to the city fathers is gonna grab a mike and explain how they got to where they got and then I can slap my head and say, danged, I flat out missed that.

My hope chips are truly runnin' low.

Worse, the lil' cynical voice in the lower left corner of the brain is wondering ... why do I do keep hearing Briar Rabbit chuckling?

[Midtowner]

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.

Citation please?

From everything I can tell, what you just said is simply not true. It may be the party line, but the party line is based on the faulty premise that the single subject rule applies to municipalities. There's no authority for that anywhere.. and further, well, just read the two longish posts of mine on page one of this thread. I don't need to repeat myself.

[andy157]

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

Are you saying there is no mis-information being thrown at the public by the City?

[Midtowner]

We're on the same page. I keep thinking though that surely someone who sold that gotta be this way notion to the city fathers is gonna grab a mike and explain how they got to where they got and then I can slap my head and say, danged, I flat out missed that.

My hope chips are truly runnin' low.

Worse, the lil' cynical voice in the lower left corner of the brain is wondering ... why do I do keep hearing Briar Rabbit chuckling?

Doubtful.

Most Oklahoma citizens are only marginally aware of the existence of a state Constitution.. hell... lawyers for that matter. How often do you see anyone actually cite the Oklahoma Constitution in briefing? For me, it's a rarity.

My cynical voice tells me that since most folks aren't lawyers and most lawyers don't know or don't care enough to say anything in public about this that the public is simply going to take city hall's word for it on this matter and that city hall probably won't clarify their position because there's nothing to clarify. Their position is wrong. It's based upon a faulty reading recent precedent pertaining to the single subject rule (insofar as its application to municipalities vs. the legislature).

At this point, instead of folding, they're doubling down. Even if they know damn well that this ballot measure has some serious constitutional defects, it's highly doubtful anyone will admit it.

If it's struck down, they'll at least be able to run with the revised ballot chanting some sort of mantra about public opinion being on their side.

If it's not struck down, the ballot measure gives the new MAPS III folks maximum flexibility in building these MAPS improvements.

[Doug Loudenback]

Doug, knowing what you know regarding documents, timeframes, dates, offers and counter-offers. Do you believe mapsfacts.org has put out all of the facts as they pertain to the FOP issue?

No. NotThisMaps does no better.

Neither side has done that, as was hopefully clear enough (at least my opinion concerning the same) in the Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate article.

Now, as of yesterday, we've got a new player, Porter Davis, who had the press conference on city hall steps yesterday surrounded by a number of NotThisMaps people dressed up in their NotThisMaps gear. Here's the video: YouTube - Not This Maps - Oklahoma City - Press Conference - 20091124 - Part 1 of 2

At about 2:45-3:10 into that video, he says,

If there are any investigative reporters here I would start looking at conflicts of interest. Who owns the property in and around the MAPS projects. * * * I've just been told and I haven't verified it but you might start with who owns this old city airpark just where they [inaudible] proposed convention center."

He got a big hand with that line.

Problem is ... the downtown airpark area isn't part of MAPS 3 and it has never been proposed that the convention center be located there. Just more misinformation.

As I've already said, credibility is a big problem all the way around.

Soooo ... who're you gonna trust?

[Larry OKC]

Why? Because of a potential hotel?

I'm not seeing anything about the Convention hotel on their site, so no, that doesn't have anything to do with my short statement (a more complete post to follow). But since you asked about the hotel, so far the MAPS 3 info hasn't really mentioned if the $280M includes the cost of building the attached hotel. Thought I saw something recently that stated it did, but can't recall where or when. If anyone has the info and can supply, please post. Anyway, this is what the Chamber's report stated:

Hotel Financing – The costs to develop headquarter hotels are significant. There are no examples nationwide of a fully privately-developed convention center headquarter hotel in at least the last five years. Two possible financing scenarios include:

(1) A public sector entity can provide financial subsidies (tax increment financing, public sector construction of parking or other infrastructure, land donation, cash contributions) to a private developer to ensure that the developer can generate a necessary return on investment.

(2) A public sector entity can form a corporation or authority to issue tax exempt debt for the project, typically at rates lower than those available to a private developer. The majority of headquarter hotels funded over the past five years have used this method.

It's not clear if MAPS 3 funding is part of this or not.

[andy157]

No. NotThisMaps does no better.

Neither side has done that, as was hopefully clear enough (at least my opinion concerning the same) in the Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate article.

Now, as of yesterday, we've got a new player, Porter Davis, who had the press conference on city hall steps yesterday surrounded by a number of NotThisMaps people dressed up in their NotThisMaps gear. Here's the video: YouTube - Not This Maps - Oklahoma City - Press Conference - 20091124 - Part 1 of 2

At about 2:45-3:10 into that video, he says,


He got a big hand with that line.

Problem is ... the downtown airpark area isn't part of MAPS 3 and it has never been proposed that the convention center be located there. Just more misinformation.

As I've already said, credibility is a big problem all the way around.

Soooo ... who're you gonna trust?

Ever feel like Michael Corleone?

[Blazerfan11]

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

[BOBTHEBUILDER]

Sure sounds like it....

[LordGerald]

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

That's funny, cuz I watched yesterday's City Council meeting last night on Channel 20. You are wrong again.

[Doug Loudenback]

Ever feel like Michael Corleone?

The young one or the old one?

[LakeEffect]

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

The City's internet feed was working... and I watched a bit of the presentation live on Channel 20, so maybe it's your cable that's messed up.

[Urban Pioneer]

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

Excuse me???? Now who's getting desperate? Geez... SCORCHED EARTH, "misinformation", and complete blatant lying seem to be the way of those want to confuse the public.

If you don't like the proposal, then just vote "no". I watched the minutes in the city archives on their website with ease yesterday.

Get a grip, some manners, or stick your head in the sand for the benefit of everyone else who is tired of your mindless rhetoric.

[betts]

Excuse me???? Now who's getting desperate? Geez... SCORCHED EARTH, "misinformation", and complete blatant lying seem to be the way of those want to confuse the public.

If you don't like the proposal, then just vote "no". I watched the minutes in the city archives on their website with ease yesterday.

Get a grip, some manners, or stick your head in the sand for the benefit of everyone else who is tired of your mindless rhetoric.

You have to consider the source. You may not be acquainted with the source, but believe me, mindless rhetoric is the rule, not the exception.

[betts]

No. NotThisMaps does no better.

Now, as of yesterday, we've got a new player, Porter Davis, who had the press conference on city hall steps yesterday surrounded by a number of NotThisMaps people dressed up in their NotThisMaps gear. Here's the video: YouTube - Not This Maps - Oklahoma City - Press Conference - 20091124 - Part 1 of 2

At about 2:45-3:10 into that video, he says,

Originally Posted by Porter Davis
If there are any investigative reporters here I would start looking at conflicts of interest. Who owns the property in and around the MAPS projects. * * * I've just been told and I haven't verified it but you might start with who owns this old city airpark just where they [inaudible] proposed convention center."

He got a big hand with that line.

Problem is ... the downtown airpark area isn't part of MAPS 3 and it has never been proposed that the convention center be located there. Just more misinformation.

We've heard that parrotted here multiple times. These posters are so in tune with Oklahoma City that they don't even seem to know that the airpark is south of the Oklahoma River, they clearly don't know anything about Core to Shore and they've not truly educated themselves on some of the MAPS issues. For someone with that kind of ignorance to be given a public forum is disheartening. As I've said, these people are so busy being against this, but there's nothing I can see that they're FOR, at least as far as the city is concerned. What are they working to improve? In what way does not passing MAPS make Oklahoma City a better place in which to live?

[blangtang]

okay, now i'm convinced that a $777 million capital improvement will include a new Chesapeake HQ downtown, what's not to like about that?

I've decided to tell everyone I know to vote 'yes'

[andy157]

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

It would be nice to see what the City's offer of November 4 looked like.

[Doug Loudenback]

It surely would, andy157. Maybe one or our police posters could supply a copy?

[Larry OKC]

Fleshing out my initial uncharacteristic, brief post: “The 1st “Fact” under the Convention Center isn’t accurate” near the beginning of the thread

From MAPSFACTS.ORG

Convention Center Facts

Myth: The proposed convention center would not be fully funded by this MAPS.

Ward 5 City Councilor Brian Walters said at a November 13 press conference that MAPS 3 is only “the first phase” in funding for a new convention center and that taxpayers would possibly be forced to pay “another quarter-of-a-billion dollars” to finish the project after MAPS 3 expires. (footnotes omitted)

Fact: This MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center.

The statement made by Councilman Walters is just flat not true. Each of the proposed projects within this MAPS package have been fully budgeted for completion. Since 1993, the City has on every occasion done exactly what it said it would do regarding MAPS. This MAPS is no different.

Let’s start with a look at the “first phase” issue. He did make the statement, but he didn’t originate the concept. It comes from the Chamber’s eight month old Convention report. The report concentrated on the existing challenges faced by the Cox C.C and made a recommendation that a new C.C. be built. Because of the $400M cost, rather than build a “full build out” the City might consider building the C.C. in phases. The 1st phase has the minimum CURRENT space requirements of a Tier 2 City. Again, this is talking about CURRENT needs, if built today. NOT the needs 10 years from now when the Mayor has said numerous times the new C.C. would open. We will probably already be in need of the full, complete “expanded” (Phase 2) C.C. by then.

Therefore, future convention center planning should take into consideration the potential for future expansion. For general planning purposes, convention center expansions tend to target roughly a 50 percent increase in space, however each market is unique and the actual expansion space supported can vary widely on a market to market basis.
If rather than a phased approach to facility development, a full build out (to 300,000 square feet of exhibit space) were pursued, the larger venue would likely operate at very low occupancy levels for an extended period of time. However, there would also be construction cost efficiencies with the larger construction as opposed to two-phased approach.

Then the Mayor himself mentioned Phase 1/Phase 2 long before Mr. Walters:

Q&A with Mick Cornett (Oklahoman, 3/11/09)

Q: The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber released a study Tuesday recommending construction of a $400 million convention center. How do you see this proposal moving forward?

A: First of all, the $400 million number you mentioned is if we pursued both a phase one and two. I think we are more focused on considering a phase one in the short term, which would cost closer to $250 million....

Based on the above & the MAPS 3 C.C. cost is $280M, it appears MAPS 3 C.C. is "Phase 1". Just as Councilman Walter’s said and there will be a Phase 2. The difference between the $400M for the complete C.C. and the $250M is $150M and not “another quarter-of-a-billion dollars”. Not sure where the extra $100M came from but may be factoring in what increased construction costs might be 10 years from now (after Phase 1 is complete).


Now let’s take a look at the funding part:

Convention Center Facts

Oklahoma City has real potential to grow its convention center business. The convention center proposed in MAPS would be the only modern-day convention center in Oklahoma City, and would be complete as funded.
...

Myth: The proposed convention center would not be fully funded by this MAPS. ...

Fact: This MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center.

... Each of the proposed projects within this MAPS package have been fully budgeted for completion....

Really? Not according to the City. No budget has been finalized so to say it is “fully budgeted’ (completed or otherwise) seems to be a stretch. Here is what the City has to say from a 24 page News Release (dated 9/17/09) and reiterated nearly verbatim at City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing about the budgeted amounts for the MAPS 3 ‘proposed” projects:

A note regarding cost estimates: Cost estimates for each project are approximate. It is expected that some projects may cost more than estimated, and some may cost less. Just as in the original MAPS, the cost estimates for individual projects are not included in the legal documents, they are merely guides the Mayor and Council use to calculate the necessary length of the tax collection.

Not sure where they come up with the “may cost less” part as not a single one of the original MAPS projects came in under what voters were told. Overall, the original MAPS came in 47.75% over.

From the Gazette: Oklahoma City planning director answers questions about potential Downtown park | OKG Scene.com

Russell Claus, City Planning Director (talking about the Park and operating budget, but this applies to the overall budget of MAPS 3)

“Keep in mind that the park design is just at the concept phase and projecting any numbers at this point is very speculative.
None of the MAPS projects have been fully developed.”

If they haven’t been “fully developed” how can the Chamber make the claim it is “fully budgeted”?

Then there was this, originally posted 10-21-2009, 11:27 AM in the MAPS 3 ‘Central park’ Plans not final? thread:

The final plans for the MAPS 3 ‘Central Park’ implementation have not been set, at least, that is what these statements from a recent Gazette article lead me to believe.

Asst. City Manager Cathy O’Connor on the park:
Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor said the total estimated price tag to the city is $130 million for the parks portions of the “Core to Shore” project.

“It is still a concept plan. It isn’t the final version of the plan — that won’t be done until after the election, if the election is successful,” O’Connor said. “Then we’ll have a much better idea of what everything’s really going to cost.”

And Planning Director Russell Claus:
“these amenities and the associated numbers are extremely conjectural. (This is) based on a very preliminary evaluation of the possible content and functions of the park,” he said.“As such, inclusion of all amenities mentioned, estimates on size and other numbers cited are subject to significant change before they are finalized — a process which will not happen until after a successful vote.”

NewsOK
Proposed Oklahoma City Convention Center will include more space, room to grow (Oklahoman, 11/22/09)

Like the other projects in the MAPS 3 plan, there is no final design for the convention center.”

Given that projects are in the conceptual stage and nothing is finalized how can anything be “fully budgeted” (and won’t be until sometime after the vote)?

So it would appear that the Chamber's “Fact” that “[t]his MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center” and “would be complete as funded” isn’t quite the case. Their Fact is a Myth. IMO

[andy157]

Fleshing out my initial uncharacteristic, brief post: “The 1st “Fact” under the Convention Center isn’t accurate” near the beginning of the thread

From MAPSFACTS.ORG



Let’s start with a look at the “first phase” issue. He did make the statement, but he didn’t originate the concept. It comes from the Chamber’s eight month old Convention report. The report concentrated on the existing challenges faced by the Cox C.C and made a recommendation that a new C.C. be built. Because of the $400M cost, rather than build a “full build out” the City might consider building the C.C. in phases. The 1st phase has the minimum CURRENT space requirements of a Tier 2 City. Again, this is talking about CURRENT needs, if built today. NOT the needs 10 years from now when the Mayor has said numerous times the new C.C. would open. We will probably already be in need of the full, complete “expanded” (Phase 2) C.C. by then.



Then the Mayor himself mentioned Phase 1/Phase 2 long before Mr. Walters:



Based on the above & the MAPS 3 C.C. cost is $280M, it appears MAPS 3 C.C. is "Phase 1". Just as Councilman Walter’s said and there will be a Phase 2. The difference between the $400M for the complete C.C. and the $250M is $150M and not “another quarter-of-a-billion dollars”. Not sure where the extra $100M came from but may be factoring in what increased construction costs might be 10 years from now (after Phase 1 is complete).


Now let’s take a look at the funding part:



Really? Not according to the City. No budget has been finalized so to say it is “fully budgeted’ (completed or otherwise) seems to be a stretch. Here is what the City has to say from a 24 page News Release (dated 9/17/09) and reiterated nearly verbatim at City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing about the budgeted amounts for the MAPS 3 ‘proposed” projects:



Not sure where they come up with the “may cost less” part as not a single one of the original MAPS projects came in under what voters were told. Overall, the original MAPS came in 47.75% over.

From the Gazette: Oklahoma City planning director answers questions about potential Downtown park | OKG Scene.com

Russell Claus, City Planning Director (talking about the Park and operating budget, but this applies to the overall budget of MAPS 3)



If they haven’t been “fully developed” how can the Chamber make the claim it is “fully budgeted”?

Then there was this, originally posted 10-21-2009, 11:27 AM in the MAPS 3 ‘Central park’ Plans not final? thread:

NewsOK
Proposed Oklahoma City Convention Center will include more space, room to grow (Oklahoman, 11/22/09)


Given that projects are in the conceptual stage and nothing is finalized how can anything be “fully budgeted” (and won’t be until sometime after the vote)?

So it would appear that the Chamber's “Fact” that “[t]his MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center” and “would be complete as funded” isn’t quite the case. Their Fact is a Myth. IMO

Thank you.

[Platemaker]

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

WHAT THE...!?!?!?!?

That's funny, cuz I watched yesterday's City Council meeting last night on Channel 20. You are wrong again.

The City's internet feed was working... and I watched a bit of the presentation live on Channel 20, so maybe it's your cable that's messed up.

Excuse me???? Now who's getting desperate? Geez... SCORCHED EARTH, "misinformation", and complete blatant lying seem to be the way of those want to confuse the public.

If you don't like the proposal, then just vote "no". I watched the minutes in the city archives on their website with ease yesterday.

Get a grip, some manners, or stick your head in the sand for the benefit of everyone else who is tired of your mindless rhetoric.

No need to say any more...

You should be blocked.