Should City look at other options for the Convention Center?

[betts]

This city better not lie to me.

I voted YES because I kept hearing on websites, like this one -

Voters Approve MAPS 3 - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

That on top of a new park (C2S element), a new convention center (C2S element), would be built.

It says so in that article.

I won't trust this city, if they keep ******* with my emotions.

Where has the city ever mentioned revamping the Cox Center instead of building a new convention center? This thread was started as speculation and an interesting discussion. The word chill comes to mind.

Larry, I realize that you're still not happy MAPS passed, but personally, I would prefer to wait and see what happens. There is no more evidence that the city will change their intent than that they will. Which is.....none.

[Larry OKC]

Where has the city ever mentioned revamping the Cox Center instead of building a new convention center? This thread was started as speculation and an interesting discussion. The word chill comes to mind.

Larry, I realize that you're still not happy MAPS passed, but personally, I would prefer to wait and see what happens. There is no more evidence that the city will change their intent than that they will. Which is.....none.

I am not happy that it passed in the form that it did and thru the spin, half truths and yes, in some cases out right lies in order to get it to pass. That didn't bother some people. That said, it did barely pass by 54% but only about 8% of the residents of OKC. But 100% of the residents are paying the tax (unless they don't buy anything within the OKC city limits for the next 7+ years).

I sincerely hope that all of the proposed projects 1) get built, 2) as described and 3) within budget.

The evidence of MAPS.
1) all got built = CHECK*
2) built as described = HALF CHECK**
3) within budget = ABSOLUTE FAIL***

*serious consideration was given to eliminating the Arena after failing to get an NHL team and the considerable known cost over runs of just a couple of projects. The City could have eliminated it without a vote of the people due to a clause in the language that said that the Council could deem any project as being "completed" even if a single spade of dirt hadn't been turned. to the City's credit they did decide to essentially put the fate of the Arena in the voter's hands with the 6 month "extension" of the tax.

**A couple of projects come to mind. As wonderful as the Ballpark is, it was supposed to have been even better. And the obvious issue of the Arena (was it built to be a Convention Center as the Ballot language indicated) and was it truly built in that phrase you despise and actually built to the standards of the NBA or not?

***Not a single MAPS project came in under budget. Not one. Context and extenuating circumstances or not, the fact remains that what the voter's were told and the final cost, there was a difference of 47.75% ($114.1 Million over).

Fact is the City has changed its intent before. You know this so to say that there is no evidence just isn't true. They most assuredly can do it again. Will they, we don't know. But it only takes a vote of 5 to 4 to change it. While 8 of the 9 said they supported MAPS 3, a couple also said they weren't completely happy with it but they pushed it off for the voters to decide. According to the City's site, by law, all tax increases must be approved by a vote of the people, and since this tax increase was the method of funding, they had no choice but to put it to a vote.

Council persons that could easily vote for changing the Intent?

Wards 3 (Larry McAtee) = failed

Ward 4 (Pete White) = failed, the highest defeat by 1,450 votes)
"Some of us don’t like a lot of it, but the people get a chance to vote on it,” White said. "I feel obligated to go ahead and put this to a vote of the people ... and I do that with some enthusiasm.” The voters of his Ward spoke and rather loudly, what is his position on each of the MAPS projects now?

Ward 5 (Brian Walters), = failed.
The only Council person to vote against it but inline with his voting constituents.

Ward 6 (Meg Salyer) it squeaked by (57 votes).

Ward 8 Councilman (Pat Ryan)
Said MAPS 3 "isn’t perfect". His ward had the highest swing of Yes voters (4,159). Unless he is hears differently from them, he will probably take that to mean they liked all of them and vote in step. But if he hears significant opposition to a particular project, he might be a "change of intent" vote as well.

The question for those respective Council people is, do they follow the wishes of the people they have been elected to represent? If so, most are fairly cut and dried but Ward 6 has a real quandary. Then take into account that Council members come and go. The member that supported it may be replaced by someone that doesn't support a particular project. In other words, getting to the magic number of 5 to change the intent, doesn't take all that much.

In no way am I suggesting that none of the proposed projects are going to get built. History doesn't indicate that at all, but it is entirely possible that one or two may face elimination completely, of be scaled back significantly. For some reason I think the Senior Aquatic centers will be the first targeted for cut backs (not eliminated completely but maybe a 2 or 3 built rather than 4 or 5) and not with near the amenities as the Arkansas model. Other lesser projects that probably wouldn't cause a huge uproar, is if they cut back on the trails and sidewalks (how will anyone know if these get cut back or not? The Trails were to "almost" complete the master plan and I haven't seen any Sidewalk locations. Only thing we will have to go by is $$$ spent.

That is why I and others, insisted that we get things nailed down in the Ballot/Ordinance language (take out the insurance policy BEFORE the storm hits). It is pure speculation on your part to take out an insurance policy since you don't have a crystal ball and you don't know if a storm is going to hit your home and cause significant damage or not. Guess it is better to just wait and see if it happens. Then try to get a policy that is retroactive to fix it (after all the data is in of course). Or maybe you are right and a damaging storm never hits your home. Guess you are willing to take that chance.

Unfortunately that slim margin of victory also took away the ability of the rest of us to get the insurance policy too. Thanks!

[betts]

We know Larry. I'm just pointing out that at this point in time, it's anxiety or some other similar emotion you feel, not certainty. There's no evidence at this time that anyone's concerns in this matter are anything but that: a feeling of concern. So, as I tell my kids: 95% of everything we worry about never comes to fruition. Worry when you know you have to worry and don't waste energy doing it beforehand.

If you have a concrete plan to assuage any concern, that's different.

[Larry OKC]

Betts, do you have insurance coverage?

[betts]

I'm not completely sure what your point is, but I'll give it a go. Of course I have insurance coverage. That's a concrete plan, set up in the present to protect against possible problems in the future. However, if I couldn't get insurance for whatever reason, I wouldn't spend all my time and energy worrying about what might happen.

If you want to use a different analogy: do you spend hours of your life every day worrying that you are going to get cancer? That's a waste of time. You do what you can to keep yourself healthy as possible, and you enjoy your day, because you "might" get cancer, but you might not. Why waste time worrying about what might not happen? Instead, enjoy the time you have and do something productive with it.

As I said, if there's something concrete that can NOW be done to prevent present MAPS money from being spent for something other than what we were told it will be spent for, then that's fine. I'm all for it. But I haven't seen it. Just stirring up worry that it might not on a message board doesn't seem to serve any purpose. It works as well as walking into a room of 30 year olds and telling them: 50 percent of you are going to get cancer and then walking out. You've then created general unease and worry without giving them any steps to help them prevent it from happening.

I realize you are unhappy that the ballot didn't have any guarantees and you stated your concern before the vote. However, the voters passed MAPS without those guarantees being present. So, we live with that. If all sorts of things that were promised aren't built or, if money is directed to things that weren't on the ballot, then when we have another MAPS voters will be able, with their vote, to let local government know they weren't happy with what was done. In the meantime, you can go to city council meetings or any others related and express your displeasure vocally with how things are going, IF you see redirection of funds happening. If it doesn't happen, then there's nothing that need be done, and that's my point: we don't know if it's going to happen, so why waste time worrying about it publicly?

[Kerry]

Betts, do you have insurance coverage?

Do you have insurance againt killer robots from space?

[Larry OKC]

I'm not completely sure what your point is, but I'll give it a go. Of course I have insurance coverage.

See previous post on the insurance question...

That's a concrete plan, set up in the present to protect against possible problems in the future. However, if I couldn't get insurance for whatever reason, I wouldn't spend all my time and energy worrying about what might happen.

That's what we were asking for in correcting the Ballot/Ordinance language. An insurance policy that stated specifically what was going to be done with 3/4 of a Billion $$$. Not the overly generic, we are going to spend it on something. Making sure AHEAD of time the proper safeguards were in place.

If you want to use a different analogy: do you spend hours of your life every day worrying that you are going to get cancer? ...

Nope, that's why I have a Cancer insurance rider.

As I said, if there's something concrete that can NOW be done to prevent present MAPS money from being spent for something other than what we were told it will be spent for, then that's fine. I'm all for it. ...

Why weren't you for it BEFORE the fact?

...If all sorts of things that were promised aren't built or, if money is directed to things that weren't on the ballot, then when we have another MAPS voters will be able, with their vote, to let local government know they weren't happy with what was done.[/B] In the meantime, you can go to city council meetings or any others related and express your displeasure vocally with how things are going, IF you see redirection of funds happening.

But by then it is too late, isn't it? Sure you can vote people out, but damage has already been done.

Some of us proposed a "concrete plan" but you were against that weren't you? A listing of items on the Ballot (to be legal, probably listed as separate propositions). But you were against that as well (even though the log-rolling type of Ballot is unconstitutional). It didn't seem to bother you in the least that the Mayor's office said they would follow the recent state Supreme Court rulings with the Ballot (and then didn't). It didn't bother you that the Mayor said that "each of these projects must stand on its own" (implying a Ballot with separate propositions), then we got the same "all or nothing" Ballot. Why didn't any of that bother you? The obvious question is, why did they set up the Ballot/Ordinance in the way they did? If not for the express purpose of being able to change their "intent" later on? Of course the Mayor claimed he and the Council decided to use the illegal all or nothing format because that is what the voter's are used to. Conveniently forgetting that the voters are used to separate and legal propositions. See the 2007 General Obligation & School Bond Issues, in which voters weren't confused at all...separate propositions and every one passed quite easily.

If it doesn't happen, then there's nothing that need be done, and that's my point: we don't know if it's going to happen, so why waste time worrying about it publicly?

<<SIGH>> It was in response to another post....

[Larry OKC]

Do you have insurance againt killer robots from space?

No, but unlike the City which has shown that they can and will change their intent (see Bass Pro and the change of intent of THREE different Use Taxes), we haven't had any instances of killer robots from space.

[betts]

Larry, again, give us a NEW proposal. We've rehashed all the others and what didn't happen ad nauseum. Why didn't I support the other proposals? I did. Intellectually. But, I also believe in compromise and weighing the good versus the ill. I understand that in politics you never get precisely what you want.

To me, it was foolish to vote against something that had the potential for so much good, because of the concern that it might not turn out exactly like I envisioned. That's all. I looked at the benefits and the risks and decided the benefits had the upper hand. If, in government, you wait for the perfect proposal, you will wait a long time and nothing will ever get done. There was no way I was going to vote against something that had many items I wanted in it in the vague hope that a better proposal might later appear. Black and white is for accountants, not politics.

[Laramie]

Good way of looking at the MAPs proposals Betts; that's why I voted for all the MAPs proposals because there was something in it for everybody (bundled projects) and it has totally changed people's perception of Oklahoma City.

My relatives who live in Texas: Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Waco areas and some in Kansas (Wichita), Missouri (Kansas City) and Albuquerque, NM now can't wait until I invite them to come--and I can't wait to entertain.

I'm extemely proud of our city now and there are now many attractions to take them--OKC Zoo, Bricktown (Ford/Cox Centers, Ballpark, Stage Center, Canal, Harkins Theater), Tinseltown, Whitewater, Frontier City, Cowboy Hall & Western Heritage Museum, Civic Center, OKC Museum of Art, Chesapeake Boathouse-Regatta Park, Lake Hefner, Warren Theater (Moore), Oak Tree (Edmond), Pops (Arcadia), Memorial Stadium (Norman) and I could go on and on...

My relatives come here all the time and several came up when the Thunder played Dallas, Houston & San Antonio and my relatives were very complimentary on the Bricktown Canal vs. the San Antonio Riverwalk--they admitted that it was cleaner. I enjoy being a host!

MAPS has triggered so much for this City and others are hearing about it. They couldn't wait to tell me that they saw the Ford Center and all the construction going on and the stops that made at Winstar Casino and Turner Falls in Davis on their way up. They are really impressed with Oklahoma City. Younger family members are inquiring about OU's merit scholar and UCO's programs and wants me to help them get established here.

I'm impressed about what they know and have heard about Oklahoma City.

Which shows that we (OKC) has come a long way.

[Laramie]

Do you have insurance againt killer robots from space?

Wow! Kerry how are you?

That robot reminds me of those ole nasty tatoos of former Thunder gold-bricker-sicker Robert Swift!

[Spartan]

Why are we talking about cancer insurance and killer robots from space in this thread?

[Larry OKC]

Larry, again, give us a NEW proposal. ...

Here is my new proposal:

1). File a lawsuit to get MAPS 3 overturned on unconstitutional grounds.

Then proceed with the previous proposals that would have fixed it.

[betts]

Larry, if you've got any interest in saving the taxpayers money, which I thought was at least one of your secondary interests, you'd realize that your newest suggestion would do precisely the opposite. Unless you're a lawyer, which is who would be the beneficiaries of our tax dollars. We'd get lawyers instead of a convention center.

That's not my idea of a solution.

[mugofbeer]

Yeah, thats the solution. Let's file another lawsuit to overturn the clear will of the people so LarryOKC can have his pound of flesh.

[kevinpate]

Here is my new proposal:

1). File a lawsuit to get MAPS 3 overturned on unconstitutional grounds.

Then proceed with the previous proposals that would have fixed it.

With respect, the two main things preventing you or anyone else who strongly believes this to be an appropriate path are:
(a) a willingness to write an adequate retainer check to a law firm
(b) a law firm willing to accept the retainer and advocate your position

When you are ready to take care of (a), I imagine you can find a (b) in short order. Whether you'll prevail is of course an entirely separate question.


Am I all gaga over the M3 process? Nopers
Do I gritch or stroke when I buy taxable items in OKC? Also Nopers
Do I hope for the best? Sure

[Larry OKC]

Larry, if you've got any interest in saving the taxpayers money, which I thought was at least one of your secondary interests, you'd realize that your newest suggestion would do precisely the opposite. Unless you're a lawyer, which is who would be the beneficiaries of our tax dollars. We'd get lawyers instead of a convention center.

That's not my idea of a solution.

So what IS your solution? Other than blindly hoping everything turns out for the best?

As far as cost to the taxpayers that would be the fault of the City for putting itself in the position to begin with. They could have easily set it up so it was legal/constitutional but deliberately chose the other route (even though they said they would). You have to ask yourself, Why?

These are the same folks you are blindly trusting? I just don't get it.

[betts]

So what IS your solution? Other than blindly hoping everything turns out for the best?.

Yes. At this point in time, that seems like the most practical way to go forward. I have a lot of evidence (MAPS 1, 2 and 2.5) that I'll basically get what I voted for and virtually none that I won't.

As far as cost to the taxpayers that would be the fault of the City for putting itself in the position to begin with. They could have easily set it up so it was legal/constitutional but deliberately chose the other route (even though they said they would). You have to ask yourself, Why?

These are the same folks you are blindly trusting? I just don't get it.

So, to make your point, you'd rather we use our taxes to pay lawyers than improve our city? And "blindly trust" that, in the end, which could be 15 years from now instead of 7, the voters will somehow get what they have already voted for, at what could be a significant increase in cost? I'd rather blindly trust our city officials.