MAPS 3 Trails complete or not?

[betts]

Low standard? Are you politicking Larry? That seems like an overstatement or misstatement, to me. I think, if we demand that the same amount of money be used to construct twice as many miles of trails, that's when we can expect something less than "excellence". I'll let you argue any day of the week that the language being used prior to the vote was inaccurate. But, if the amount of money available only pays for half the trails in the Master Plan, I'd rather have 55 miles constructed in the proper fashion than have some vague campaign promise filled by cutting corners and doubling the number of miles completed. That, to me would be a low standard, giving us less than excellence. It's like buying a dress at Walmart for half the price and expecting it to be as well tailored and last as long as one you purchase at Dillards. Not going to happen. So, regardless of election overstatement, if we only have money to do 55 miles right, that's what I want. That to me is excellence. So, continue your campaign against campaign promises.....fine with me......just don't imply that failing to fulfill them gets us something less than "excellence".

[BDP]

We had many a thread discussing how lax and vague the Ballot and Ordinance was before the vote...nothing but a handshake agreement on the part of the City...a $777M blank check...am surprised that so many are willing to hold the City to such a low standard. This is your money being spent. Demand excellence and you might get it. Demand bare minimum and you just might get that too.

I agree with betts. How is 57 miles a "low standard", especially if it is done nicely? It increases the trails by over 60% to 140 miles. That doesn't sound too shabby at all, imo.

The vagueness is clearly a fault of MAPS 3, if anything, it opens them up to stuff like this. Basically, people are going to attach their own subjective assumptions to what will happen and basically never be satisfied with the progress if it doesn't meet their own ideas of excellence. I have no problem with you badgering the city for this, but it's also a vanity exercise, imo.

Basically, what I am say is, if you want to complain to the city about 57 miles because it doesn't fulfill ambiguous promises made about an ambiguous proposal, then go for it. But I'll save my breath for when I see what I perceive as a real unnecessary compromise or mistake on a MAPS 3 project. I care more about the project and what it produces than I do about any of the politicians involved. They will all be gone soon and these projects will define the city for decades. And before I read you post about their interpretations of what MAPS would do for the City Trails, I would have thought everyone would be happy with an additional 57 miles of trails.

And, btw, it's not just MY money. It's OUR money.

[OSUFan]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it has been billed as 57 miles from day one right? We can argue all day about what "almost" or "virtually" complete means but it has always been 57 miles. I guess I don't see the problem. We weren't promised 100 miles and now were are getting 57. We were promised 57, until we get less than that I guess I don't see the problem.

[jbrown84]

Exactly. I appreciate Larry's watchdog mentality, but in this case, he's really splitting hairs.

[Larry OKC]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it has been billed as 57 miles from day one right? We can argue all day about what "almost" or "virtually" complete means but it has always been 57 miles. I guess I don't see the problem. We weren't promised 100 miles and now were are getting 57. We were promised 57, until we get less than that I guess I don't see the problem.

If you count the Mayors statement at the MAPS 3 Announcement Press Conference as "day 1", no mention was made about the number of miles (but when mentioned later, has remained consistently the 57 number).

"We have a Master Bicycle Trail Plan and we have been implementing that slowly through the years. We felt though that at the current rate of funding it was going be a couple of decades before we finished it and that was not acceptable. In our effort to be a more healthy community and to prioritize people getting out and exercising we have decided to place $40 million for the Master Trail plan into MAPS 3. This will fundamentally complete the Master Trail package we have been working on for over 10 years and would have been working on for another two decades had it not been placed into MAPS 3."

Just as the Council members who supported MAPS 3 were surprised to learn this (see post #1) in essence we were promised 120 miles (mol) by the various versions of the "complete" statements. So yes anything less than 120 miles is a problem mainly because those remaining 60 miles of trails are going to cost at least $40M more to actually complete what they were saying they were going to do.

[Larry OKC]

BDP: You said that you wouldn't sign a contract without having the specifics spelled out. But apparently that is exactly what you did when it came to MAPS 3. You took the verbal assurances, and then when it is discovered that they only plan on doing half of what they said, you go back and read the contract and it says "going to make improvements". So as long as they made some improvements (no matter how minor), its ok? You seemed to accept the fairly "low standard" set out in the Intent Resolution.

5. Improvements and/or enhancements to the Oklahoma City public trails system.

I don't understand that at all. .

Then you said

But I'll save my breath for when I see what I perceive as a real unnecessary compromise or mistake on a MAPS 3 project.

Presuming the greatest benefit of a doubt and lets say this was out of "ignorance" or just a mistake, it is a mistake that is going to cost at least an additional $40M to rectify.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Now if you are fine with a $40M mistake, then so be it. We don't have even have half of that amount in the "contingency" fund ($17M) to cover this mistake. This is not a good start. As I tried to point out, this is one of the lesser projects and if they are making $40M mistakes this early in the game...

[Larry OKC]

jbrown84: Splitting hairs? I would agree if we were talking about the meaning of virtually/fundamentally/nearly complete and if that meant 190, 200 or all 207 miles of the Master Plan. But the amount of the remaining trails has doubled form pre-vote to after vote. Still being 60 miles away.

You are driving from OKC to Dallas (208 miles) and your car breaks down halfway between Gainesville and Denton. Are you at your destination in Dallas? Virtually in Dallas? Nearly in Dallas? No, you are still 60 miles away. Sure you are closer to Dallas than you are to OKC at that point, but how much more is it going to cost you to get your car fixed and get the rest of the way to Dallas?

In the case of the Trails, that additional 60 miles to make it all the way is going to be an additional $40M. Lets hope it doesn't cost that much to get your car fixed.

[Larry OKC]

WOW

These most recent posts are starting to remind me of the indefensible positions taken up by some of the SandRidge supporters.

Betts, thats not what I am saying.

Re: the "low standard": go back and read the discussion BDP and I were having.

"some vague campaign promise"? Go back and read the quotes, starting with the Mayor himself. No problem with some wiggle room with the qualifiers (fundamentally, virtually, etc) but otherwise they are pretty specific (unlike the Resolution). Either it is going to complete the Master Plan or it isn't.

You are correct, they got themselves boxed in the corner with no easy way out. Either complete the entire Master Plan and cut corners to do it (but we are talking biking/walking trails here, how much can you really cut?). Or do the 57 miles and have it cost another $40M to finish it later. Neither is desired.

By the way, may want to be careful about the dress...have seen the 20/20 type reports where the same clothing that is sold in the regular department stores is also available at a discount store. Same dress, made at the same factory, on the same machine, by the same operator. No difference in quality or fit. What is the difference? Which label they sew in the back.

[blake]

If you count the Mayors statement at the MAPS 3 Announcement Press Conference as "day 1", no mention was made about the number of miles (but when mentioned later, has remained consistently the 57 number).



Just as the Council members who supported MAPS 3 were surprised to learn this (see post #1) in essence we were promised 120 miles (mol) by the various versions of the "complete" statements. So yes anything less than 120 miles is a problem mainly because those remaining 60 miles of trails are going to cost at least $40M more to actually complete what they were saying they were going to do.

I'm pretty naive to this who thing, but $40M to do 60 miles of trail? Does anyone else find this insane that it would cost over 600k to do a mile?

[OSUFan]

Larry, what is the exact number of miles that needs to be built for you to be satisfied with virtually complete?

[Midtowner]

I'm pretty naive to this who thing, but $40M to do 60 miles of trail? Does anyone else find this insane that it would cost over 600k to do a mile?

Depends on how much has to be spent on right of way acquisition. I can't imagine the construction getting anywhere close to that, but taking easements, dealing with the courts and compensating landowners for those easements ain't cheap.

[Larry OKC]

Larry, what is the exact number of miles that needs to be built for you to be satisfied with virtually complete?

Before I answer, what do you consider to be fundamentally/virtually/nearly complete (remembering that the Master Plan has 207 miles)?

The answer to that is going to vary from person to person and everyone is getting bogged down in minutia when we aren't even close to that point yet.

But to answer your question, personally would count anything in the 95 to 100% range or 196 to 207 miles. According to the information presented at the Council meeting, after MAPS 3 is done, they will still have 60 miles to go (at an additional $40M+)

60 miles @ $40 million is the Big Picture that everyone is missing (and the MAPS history and the implications for the other MAPS 3 projects).

[betts]

To me, MAPS is all about getting better, about as a community voting together to say, "We want to make our city a better place in which to live." To me, better doesn't have a finite definition or an endpoint....it's a process and a a concept. So, to me, the MAPS history is all about how much better we are now than we were 20 years ago, and we have MAPS and the development spurred by MAPS to thank for that. Personally, there is no "completion" of projects. I would expect as we increase the number of trails we think, "how can we continue this to keep making it better"? When we build the streetcar line my first thought upon completion will be, "What do we do next, where should the first extension go". When we finish the park I will be thinking about what kind of development will make the surrounding areas better, etc. So, for someone who thinks like me, I want us to build the trails we can afford, and I don't worry about language.

What the mayor says in his campaign doesn't affect me as a person, but what actually is completed does. If he says 57 miles, that's the important figure to me, not how close that gets us to our goal, which to me is only a waypoint in an ongoing set of goals. What would make me unhappy is having the money to complete a project and not finishing it. From my point of view, this is a lot of splitting hairs. I like the concept of MAPS, I like what we have accomplished, and I don't worry so much what rhetoric is used in a campaign....I pay more attention to what they actually say they're going to do.

[flintysooner]

Good post betts.

I like the concept, too. MAPS provides a definite, long time frame and a specific rate. But neither total revenue nor costs can be certain. Yet at the end we have the benefit of enjoying accomplished and paid for projects. It does require considerable flexibility regarding the projects undertaken and thereby demands considerable trust of leadership.

That trust of leadership is fragile but remarkably more intact now than ever I would have guessed when the first one was proposed.

[barnold]

Larry,
I think they are all missing the point that I believe your trying to make. Accountability!

Politicians routinely make promises to gain the public trust for their vote on specific projects or just to get elected to a position. But the Public seems to have short term memory loss and is willing to accept less than completely fulfilled promises. I like your analogies and am pretty sure that no one on this forum would sign an open ended contract. Pretty sure if Betts ordered a pt. to be given 125mg of a drug, she'd be upset if they only got 80 mg. instead; even though it's almost a complete dose.

I like all the improvements made by the MAPS projects and think they enhance the city, but a blank check book to the politicians will do nothing but eventually breed loss of public trust and corruption. We've got our own "bridge to no-where" if we don't hold the politicians accountable for their promises.

[flintysooner]

I think they are all missing the point

That's funny.

[betts]

I understand Larry's point. But to me it seems as if he is trying to blur the distinction between what the mayor gave as a campaign promise and what MAPS promised. MAPS promised 57 miles of trails, and at this point in time we have no data proving we're not going to get those 57 miles. If Larry is unhappy with what the mayor promised, then he should be his target. I get the feeling Larry is already campaigning against MAPS 4, rather than the mayor. It reminds me of what our illustrious politicians do, which is why I asked him if he was politicking. Your analogy only fits if we're talking about the mayor barnold, which was never my subject. I'm fine with Larry stating his objections to statements made by a specific individual as long as the implication is clear and direct.

[barnold]

Flinty,
You're correct. I should have started with "they don't really care", it would have been more appropriate.

Betts, you are also correct. You probably understand Larry's point but like most others here refuse to hold politicians accountable for anything they promise while trying to win over the hearts and votes of "the people". Little lies, only lead to more lies that grow larger each day. As I've stated since the whole Maps3 debacle started, I support the projects and idea of Maps but believe that specific language should be included in any deal that gives politicians Millions of dollars to spend at their will, regardless of public opinion or lack thereof.

[ljbab728]

Flinty,
You're correct. I should have started with "they don't really care", it would have been more appropriate.

Betts, you are also correct. You probably understand Larry's point but like most others here refuse to hold politicians accountable for anything they promise while trying to win over the hearts and votes of "the people". Little lies, only lead to more lies that grow larger each day. As I've stated since the whole Maps3 debacle started, I support the projects and idea of Maps but believe that specific language should be included in any deal that gives politicians Millions of dollars to spend at their will, regardless of public opinion or lack thereof.

Barnold, I saw nothing in any of Betts' posts indicating that she was refusing to hold politictians accountable for anything they promised. Just because she didn't jump on that bandwagon as her main issue doesn't mean she that she falls in that category.

[Larry OKC]

It took me awhile to dig up the DVD, but from the Mayor's Magazine (replay date 11/7/09, before the vote)

RE: the MAPS 3 Trails Component discussion with Mayor Cornett and Parks & Recreation Director, Wendel Whisenhunt (not a complete transcript, just the relevant parts).

Mayor: "We have been putting forth this wonderful Trail Plan for years, but in MAPS we have the opportunity to really complete what we envision as being a totally comprehensive trail system for people who love to run or like to bike and they can go throughout the entire City area."

Whisenhunt: "We have had a Trails Master Plan for years and we have been working to complete that but we are just getting to the point where we don't have the resources to complete it. But we will have with this proposal ... What is exciting about this proposal is of course that it helps us to get really close to completing the Master Plan ... We are really excited that we can see the Trails Master Plan all but completed with this proposal."

Mayor: "The Trail System, in its entirety, how many miles throughout Oklahoma City?"

Whisenhunt: "Well, we have about 60 plus 80 that are soon to be on the ground. Our Trails Plan is about 200...200 plus. We will add 50 more plus with this proposal so we are getting pretty close to completing that plan."

Mayor: "So with passage of MAPS, in the 10 year span it will take to totally build out what is in the project, we will see 200 miles of bicycle trails."



The "200 plus" & "50 more plus" has been consistently stated elsewhere as 207 & 57 respectively... adds up to 197 miles (mol) out of the 207, within 95 to 100% of completion. I have no problems there. Not splitting hairs between complete and almost complete variations, since all were mentioned.

But that is not what we are talking about. There are 60 miles still unfunded that is going to cost at least another $40M.

[betts]

Please Larry, would you say "mayor" and not "City". Again, these sound like campaign terms. Or, are you running for mayor, which would make your statements clearer, in terms of intent. And then, please don't use the words "excellence", "standard" or "world class" until you've seen the finished product. World class, excellence and standard almost always denote quality of a product, and rarely have to do with size. The failure to potentially be less than your required length is currently the only objection you can have prior to completion. At this point, they haven't started.

[Rover]

I think we should build everything every interest group has interest in and keep taxing and overspending until everyone is totally happy. Why give everyone a Mercedes when they want a Rolls? Give EVERYBODY what they want even though it may only be interesting to a minority of people.

Does any reasonably intelligent person believe that everyone's interests will be maximally done for a penny sales tax? Surely people aren't that naive. And for politicians to imply more vision than resources...well there is something new.

MAPS spending has been extremely efficient and a model around the country. However, that isn't good enough for all special interest groups who see evil in everyone and everything.

[barnold]

Larry,
I would prefer that you preface it with the word "politician (insert name)" since they are elected officials. This would be a true representation of what their title means. Of course the city manager is easily the CM.....

Betts, still waiting for you to come on over and assist with all the changes in our medical direction. Haven't seen much of you in the FD taking over the ambulance posts.

[Larry OKC]

... MAPS spending has been extremely efficient and a model around the country. However, that isn't good enough for all special interest groups who see evil in everyone and everything.

You are joking, right? MAPS was sold to the public as costing $237.6M. When it was all said and done, it cost $351.7M. Thats $114.1M or 48% over.

Then again, maybe you meant they are efficient at over spending?

[betts]

Betts, still waiting for you to come on over and assist with all the changes in our medical direction. Haven't seen much of you in the FD taking over the ambulance posts.

I started the thread, and I thought maybe people would be tired of me reiterating that I thought it was a good idea. I stated my opinion on the previous thread, and since I long since stopped reading the prior fire department thread due to the fact that people kept restating their opinion ad nauseum, I though perhaps people didn't want to hear mine again.