MAPS 3 Press release

[SoonerDave]

Thankfully, unlike the poll from ch 9, when it comes to an actual vote, the suburbs wont have a say. I think the support for this proposal is MUCH stronger in the actual City of Oklahoma City. We don't have to worry about convincing every Edmondite that this is worth while despite the lack of funding for a train running directly from their front door to the entrance of their office building.

Here we go again with urbanistas crapping on those of us in the suburbs.

Considering that those of us IN the suburbs will be paying the lion's share of this tax, you're statement is ludicrous on it's face. I live in the suburbs, but in the Oklahoma City area, so I most certainly get to vote on this issue. There a great many citizens who live in similar areas throughout Oklahoma City, and are in the same boat.

It is precisely this bigoted attitude towards the suburbs that makes me want to jump out and vote NO about 5,000 times; I realize that's a spiteful and frustrated attitude, and I generally lean toward supporting this issue, but comments like this (which I believe to be reflective of a pretty broad subset of the core MAPS3 base) really frustrate me. Why does it have to be us versus them?

-sd

p.s. As far as the Ogle poll goes, understand that web polls are worthless as far as legitimate statistical sampling goes. Absolutely worthless.

[SoonerDave]

That's all good, Urban, but if Mayor Mick wasn't serious about the comments he made last summer, he shouldn't have said them. My comment about input had nothing to do with anything other than the mayor's comments this last summer. But, aside from that, where's the harm in publishing available detail about the final plan NOW instead of spoon feeding it beginning in early October. Are we not entitled to know the detail today?

Like I said in my article, if the vote is in December in all likelihood I'll vote for it, even if my enthusiasm will have been tempered for the reasons I've stated.

This should be a problem for anyone who supports MAPS3. Push out the pretty pictures, get all kinds of warm-fuzzy support, but be sure not to give out too many details. I think this frustrates a LOT of poeple, particularly when it comes to the issue of transparency...and right now, I think you've got to have that if there's any hint of public reticence on the project.

I'm concerned about the financial oversight structure for MAPS3, which I've heard nothing about.

[metro]

Why does it have to be us versus them?

-sd

p.s. As far as the Ogle poll goes, understand that web polls are worthless as far as legitimate statistical sampling goes. Absolutely worthless.

Because it's obvious to us "urbanistas" as you call us, that it's not an "us vs. them" mentality, but that it will greatly benefit the entire city, as well as the entire state, but the surburbanites seem to not want to grasp or admit this just to prove a point. You conclude web polls are "absolutely worthless", but keep stating you want to vote "no" just to prove a point, to the web posters you claim are absolutely worthless. The only "us vs. them" about MAPS 3 is us versus Dallas, San Antonio, Des Moines, Indy, Charlotte, etc. These are the cities we have to compete with on a regular basis to keep and attract jobs in the metro.

[Oil Capital]

I think that some of you wanted to see the images of Central Park, the only images that have been presented by the city thus far since Mayor Cornett's September 17 press conference. In conjunction with putting together my own thoughts about the upcoming Maps 3 vote, expressed at Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS III — The Actual Proposal, I extracted the 8 images of Central Park. The extracted images are quite large -- 5400 px wide, but I've resized them for my blog purposes. Rather than presenting thumbnail versions which are 250 px wide, I'll show them here in 1024 px wide format:

















While I enjoy the beauty of the above images, I'm not at all pleased about the way this has all come down in two respects: (1) Mayor Mick said during the summer that additional input would be received and considered but that now appears to have been incorrect; (2) Additional detail about the proposal is clearly presently available but will not be forthcoming from the city until a series of presentations begins at an unspecified time in October. That's crap. We're entitled and intelligent enough to see and evaluate the detail now.

My personal view is that the vote should NOT occur on December 8 but that it should be passed for 3 or so months for a period of public evaluation and perhaps change to the proposal which, at this time, is notable for its lack of detail. At least, that's my perspective.

Is your whining about insufficient opportunity for input into the plan regarding the entire MAPS 3 plan or just the park?

In any event, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an overall plan and follow it up with the detailed plans for each element. (It also seems entirely possible that all of the detailed plans are not physically ready for presentation.) Other than someone having their feelings hurt because they think they've been left out of the loop, what is the problem with the details being presented during the 2 1/2 month leading up to the vote? Do you think the citizens of OKC are too dense to be able to grasp the details in that short amount of time?

Furthermore, it is my understanding that there has indeed been opportunity for people to submit comments on the proposed MAPs 3 plan all along the process, including since this past summer.

As these things go, OKC's process has been pretty open and inclusive, and has come up with a plan that even you say you like (or at least are prepared to vote for). It's really a little hard to figure out exactly what your complaint is.

[metro]

Not to mention City Council meetings are every Tuesday and less than a dozen citizens are usually in attendance. Now I agree the City could do MUCH MORE to promote civic input and involvement, including better PR and night time meetings, but if the general citizen truly cared about the details, I think they'd take at least one Tuesday off a year from work to come voice their complaints to the council.

[SoonerDave]

Because it's obvious to us "urbanistas" as you call us, that it's not an "us vs. them" mentality, but that it will greatly benefit the entire city, as well as the entire state, but the surburbanites seem to not want to grasp or admit this just to prove a point. You conclude web polls are "absolutely worthless", but keep stating you want to vote "no" just to prove a point, to the web posters you claim are absolutely worthless. The only "us vs. them" about MAPS 3 is us versus Dallas, San Antonio, Des Moines, Indy, Charlotte, etc. These are the cities we have to compete with on a regular basis to keep and attract jobs in the metro.

Metro,

Statistically, web polls are worthless. They are a measure of only those people who actively choose to respond, eg visit the website and answer. They are not scientifically or statistically valid samples of the population.

I NEVER said web posters are absolutely worthess. Never. If you can find where I said it, please point it out.

I did not call all proponents of MAPS3 "urbanistas." I was specifically referencing the poster in this thread who said what I bolded from their post. I've already embraced the unifying notion of "urban AND suburban" life in other posts on this topic. Someone who embraces this "suburbanites won't have a say" mentality, that embodies the attitude of what I call an "urbanista," with all the implicit moral condescension. The folks who want to harmonize OKC with its varying options are the folks pushing OKC ahead.

Whether you wish to admit it, folks who live in the suburbs that lie within the OKC voting area will be the ones that either push this issue to success or failure. For any subset of those supporters to spit in their face seems oddly counterproductive.

The supporters of MAPS3 have a serious choice about how they're going to sell this to the voters. I think you can pass this initiative by selling it as a way to "fix three decades of downtown neglect," and casting positive shadows to downtown's brighter history. Run commercials of black-and-white still photos of how this area (for the park) looks right now, blighted and in disarray, then contrast it with what it will look when the park is done - vibrant, alive, and thriving. Convince the voters that they will get what they pay for with proper oversight, and I think the MAPS3 folks will be happy on Deceber 9th, and you never have to cross the bridge of "us versus them."

-sd

[metro]

I agree, but again, I think you're basing your assumptions and stance based upon what you're reading on OKCTalk, and not how the Chamber or Mayor are going to promote it. They haven't started promoting it yet and you're jumping to conclusions. The council still has to vote on it at the end of the month. Again, they both have already made it very clear it won't be easy and yes, the OKC suburban voters will be the one that ultimately decides the election. As to why one wouldn't want to further ALL of OKC and make our local economy more valuable, I have no idea how one could rationalize it and make a good case and be able to back it up with real data on why it's a bad idea.

[Doug Loudenback]

Is your whining about insufficient opportunity for input into the plan regarding the entire MAPS 3 plan or just the park?

In any event, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an overall plan and follow it up with the detailed plans for each element. (It also seems entirely possible that all of the detailed plans are not physically ready for presentation.) Other than someone having their feelings hurt because they think they've been left out of the loop, what is the problem with the details being presented during the 2 1/2 month leading up to the vote? Do you think the citizens of OKC are too dense to be able to grasp the details in that short amount of time?

Furthermore, it is my understanding that there has indeed been opportunity for people to submit comments on the proposed MAPs 3 plan all along the process, including since this past summer.

As these things go, OKC's process has been pretty open and inclusive, and has come up with a plan that even you say you like (or at least are prepared to vote for). It's really a little hard to figure out exactly what your complaint is.

Your opinions are duly noted. If you've read what I've written, here and in the blog article, you will know that you are not stating my position accurately at all. And, thanks for your courteous reply.

[Architect2010]

I have a question SoonerDave. How will the suburbanites be paying a "lion's share" of this tax? I'm not sure what you mean, so please elaborate. Suburbs rely on the city. Remember that. What's good for the city is good for the suburbs.

[SoonerDave]

I agree, but again, I think you're basing your assumptions and stance based upon what you're reading on OKCTalk, and not how the Chamber or Mayor are going to promote it. They haven't started promoting it yet and you're jumping to conclusions. The council still has to vote on it at the end of the month. Again, they both have already made it very clear it won't be easy and yes, the OKC suburban voters will be the one that ultimately decides the election. As to why one wouldn't want to further ALL of OKC and make our local economy more valuable, I have no idea how one could rationalize it and make a good case and be able to back it up with real data on why it's a bad idea.

Now THAT's a very fair assessment! Thanks for hearing me out, Metro.

[SoonerDave]

I have a question SoonerDave. How will the suburbanites be paying a "lion's share" of this tax? I'm not sure what you mean, so please elaborate. Suburbs rely on the city. Remember that. What's good for the city is good for the suburbs.

There are substantial portions of the suburbs (and population) that roll well within what will be the OKC voting boundaries for this tax, and those who live in the voting and non-voting "near-OKC" areas but do business within the city will represent a substantial if not majority portion of this tax.

This was recgonized in the MAPS for Kids program, wherein a portion (I believe it was 30%?) of the proceeds were distributed to several suburban school districts.

[Doug Loudenback]

I must say that it was impressive that at the time of the press conference only one council member was not on record of supporting the proposal. Only J. Brian Walters (Ward 5) was unaccounted for. I haven't gone back to look, but I don't recall that the MAPS 1 proposal had such near unanimity of council support, but I may be mistaken about that. Certainly the MAPS 1 extension during Mayor Humphreys' term did not.

[megax11]

I have no hope for OKC anymore, after seeing a news 9 poll where most people said they would be voting no.

I will be voting yes on this, because I'm tired of seeing OKC look like the slums between the river and 29th street around Robinson.

However, if this doesn't get passed and this city doesn't move forward, then I have no hope that this city will go anywhere.

OKC needs to look good, not horrible with vacant duck ponds on Walker.

[metro]

megax, don't give up. as I pointed to soonerdave, you're putting the wagon before the horse. MAPS 3 isn't even a legitimate program until the council votes to approve it being an official campaign at the end of the month. THEN, if passed (likely), the OKC Chamber will start promoting it. Give it time and in the meantime, spread the word and debunk some myths in your sphere of influence.

[hoya]

Your opinions are duly noted. If you've read what I've written, here and in the blog article, you will know that you are not stating my position accurately at all. And, thanks for your courteous reply.

Wow, Doug, you were a lot more polite than I would have been. His reply to you was pretty blunt.

Though I do have to say I understand both sides here. On the one hand, I think that you're right that Mick Cornett didn't exactly live up to his promise that the public would be included in the planning stages on this. I certainly understood his statement to mean that there would be public meetings where everything was discussed and gone over in a transparent, above-board fashion. Instead, the first we really hear about it is with a big, already complete presentation. That said, there was obviously some backroom politics going on here to get the city council on board. I remember some reports from earlier in the year where some on the council commented about everything being downtown, about wanting improvements for the fairgrounds and for seniors around the city. Lo and behold, MAPS 3 is revealed and we've got senior centers and fairgrounds improvements. So I'm not really sure how much choice Mayor Mick had here in that regard.

I'm disappointed with the factionalism that has seemed to appear with this latest version of MAPS, but then again, I hear that the original MAPS didn't receive universal support from the city council either. I just hope they didn't let too many people get their hands in the jar this time. Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

I'm not so irritated that they haven't released all the information at once. Obviously, this isn't being done by a neutral party. They don't want people to evaluate it and reach their own conclusions. The mayor and the council are trying to sell us something. They're making a big presentation, and they want everything to go on their timetable, without a hitch. I'm not blaming them for this. They obviously want it to pass, or they wouldn't have put in the work they have. I definitely wouldn't support it if the mayor didn't believe in his own program. So I guess I can't really blame them for wanting to be showmen and have a big reveal. Nor can I blame them for being worried that if they just throw all the info out there, that the conversation will become dominated by some crazy nutjobs.

Anyway, I think your concerns are perfectly valid. I just wonder how much behind the scene politics dictated the manner in which this all played out.

[Hawk405359]

I have no hope for OKC anymore, after seeing a news 9 poll where most people said they would be voting no.

I will be voting yes on this, because I'm tired of seeing OKC look like the slums between the river and 29th street around Robinson.

However, if this doesn't get passed and this city doesn't move forward, then I have no hope that this city will go anywhere.

OKC needs to look good, not horrible with vacant duck ponds on Walker.

The thing about web polls, anyone can vote in them, even someone like me that doesn't live in Oklahoma City and has no vote in the matter, and especially those who won't actually care enough to go out and vote when the time actually comes. Unless they can track where the vote comes from and count only those in the voting area likely to vote, they don't mean anything.

[EBAH]

Hey SoonerDave I have to apologize for my tone, I in no way intended to sound hostile or that I didn't respect the suburbs. I just think that in these polls with News9 or NewsOK or whatever, that a lot of the folks from the far reaching suburbs who are in the media market but nowhere close to the city, and have no real association with downtown will not have a vote in actual election. I know that there are some suburban voters that will be included in this vote, and for that matter, a great number of people that live within city limits that actually live further from downtown than a lot of people in actual suburbs do. All I meant to convey was that in a down economy on a question such as this, I'm glad we only have to convince the OKC residents, who will by nature feel a bit stronger sense of ownership when this project is complete.

But as the taxes are concerned I don't think there is any way that the Suburbs will be paying the "Lions" share for this and that is why they do not get a vote. If you live in Midwest City (where I was born and raised) you maybe spend 30% (MAX) of your income in Oklahoma City, buying things on the weekend, and maybe buying lunches, gas etc.. Most money spent will go to the same types of businesses we all do our spending with, Home Depot, Grocery Store, drug store, etc nearby your residence. Living in the City limits I am paying my entire property tax and paying the water/sanitation bills to the city of OKC, as well as spending literally 80%+ of the rest of my money at OKC Businesses. And even if it is fair to say that the majority of sales tax collected is from the shopping of suburban voters, when the projects are complete, it will be our property tax and utility payments that will maintain them and keep the lights on for decades to come.

[Doug Loudenback]

Wow, Doug, you were a lot more polite than I would have been. His reply to you was pretty blunt.

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't actually intending to be polite. I'm an admirer of the English and their use of understatement.

Though I do have to say I understand both sides here. On the one hand, I think that you're right that Mick Cornett didn't exactly live up to his promise that the public would be included in the planning stages on this. I certainly understood his statement to mean that there would be public meetings where everything was discussed and gone over in a transparent, above-board fashion. Instead, the first we really hear about it is with a big, already complete presentation. That said, there was obviously some backroom politics going on here to get the city council on board. I remember some reports from earlier in the year where some on the council commented about everything being downtown, about wanting improvements for the fairgrounds and for seniors around the city. Lo and behold, MAPS 3 is revealed and we've got senior centers and fairgrounds improvements. So I'm not really sure how much choice Mayor Mick had here in that regard.

Good analysis. I'd actually like a way "out" from my criticisms of the mayor since I really do like him ... he has been very good for our city. But, he did say in the spring what he said ... and it was never retracted or qualified ... so it's hard to give him a pass, as much as I'd like to.

I'm disappointed with the factionalism that has seemed to appear with this latest version of MAPS, but then again, I hear that the original MAPS didn't receive universal support from the city council either. I just hope they didn't let too many people get their hands in the jar this time. Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

I've not noticed the factionalism but probably I've not been paying close attention. However, the added items were probably included to marginalize factionalism by spreading the goodies around beyond downtown. I really don't have a problem with that happening. It makes good political sense to do that.

I'm not so irritated that they haven't released all the information at once. Obviously, this isn't being done by a neutral party. They don't want people to evaluate it and reach their own conclusions. The mayor and the council are trying to sell us something. They're making a big presentation, and they want everything to go on their timetable, without a hitch. I'm not blaming them for this. They obviously want it to pass, or they wouldn't have put in the work they have. I definitely wouldn't support it if the mayor didn't believe in his own program. So I guess I can't really blame them for wanting to be showmen and have a big reveal. Nor can I blame them for being worried that if they just throw all the info out there, that the conversation will become dominated by some crazy nutjobs.

Crazy nutjobs are part of the way things are, just have to live with it. But, unless I'm mistaken, the city isn't supposed to try to rally the troops, I'm pretty sure that it is supposed to remain neutral at least as far as advertising is concerned. People like the Chamber usually take on the selling role. If the city has the details, and it would be wholly implausible and irresponsible if it didn't, it's duty is to make the information available and let the citizens analyze it. A managed campaign by the city isn't supposed to be the way it works, I don't think. The mayor, the chamber, whoever isn't obligated to be neutral, are free to make their best pitches, and I'm sure that will happen. I'll listen to those pitches. But I'd also like the data to evaluate for myself.

Anyway, I think your concerns are perfectly valid. I just wonder how much behind the scene politics dictated the manner in which this all played out.

Thanks.

[flintysooner]

I suppose I am a "suburbanite" although the definition seems elusive at times.

I readily admit that it irritates me no end that so much money is spent on a rather small area of Oklahoma City. That is especially true when I drive every day on a road that is maintained more poorly than a horse trail. And city government is not exactly what one can describe as responsive. It would be better for us if Oklahoma City would de-annex areas that the government has no intention of supporting. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels this way.

At this point I am undecided about how I will vote on the new MAPS stuff.

[FritterGirl]

I readily admit that it irritates me no end that so much money is spent on a rather small area of Oklahoma City. That is especially true when I drive every day on a road that is maintained more poorly than a horse trail. And city government is not exactly what one can describe as responsive. It would be better for us if Oklahoma City would de-annex areas that the government has no intention of supporting. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels this way.

Flinty, keep in mind that general road and other capital improvements are funded via bond sales, which are meted out through property taxes. The 2007 General Obligation Bond Issue passed in December 2007 included improvements to over 300 miles of streets within the OKC limits. I believe you can still go to www.okc.gov and see the complete list of streets to be improved. Your street, or those nearby you, may very well be on that list.

As as I still remind people to this day, there was a 21-year funding drought between 1974 and 1995 when NO bond issues were passed. At all. As in, Zip, Zilch, Nada. As such, there was NO funding for street or other infrastructure improvements for twenty-one years. In the history of a city this size, that is a monumental amount of time, and has taken nearly 10+ years just to get barely caught up, much less ahead, considering the rate of development.

Some might argue (keep in mind I'm a "suburbanite" too) that if you choose to live out in an area that is less densely populated (far reaches of suburbs or exurbs), then yeah, you're lowest on the totem poll as the City is obligated to take care of those areas that are most densely populated first.

I look at this in terms of economic development and what this can bring in terms of additional tax revenues to the City, not to mention tourism. Of course, I'm biased as that's my industry, but anything this attractive and exciting for Oklahoma City as a whole cannot be a bad thing IMO.

I doubt building any kind of major project such as this IN THE SUBURBS would attract nearly the same amount of draw as something like this will.

[kevinpate]

> Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out
> the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

And perhaps those will be the salvation, bringing in enough yes numbers from those who desire these items, but don't much care one way or the other if there is a pretty park or a passle of shelters down near the old rail station that ain't a rail station.

I'm outside the voting perimeter so in truth my view is of minor value, but looking in from the outside, that vast mix of what's included will likely what will let it carry the day when the polls finally close, not the park itself or the convention center itself. That's not a knock on the park or the cc, just an observation on knowing how folks will vote for things they do not care about so long as they are also voting on something they do give a fig about.

[SoonerDave]

> Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out
> the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

And perhaps those will be the salvation, bringing in enough yes numbers from those who desire these items, but don't much care one way or the other if there is a pretty park or a passle of shelters down near the old rail station that ain't a rail station.

I'm outside the voting perimeter so in truth my view is of minor value, but looking in from the outside, that vast mix of what's included will likely what will let it carry the day when the polls finally close, not the park itself or the convention center itself. That's not a knock on the park or the cc, just an observation on knowing how folks will vote for things they do not care about so long as they are also voting on something they do give a fig about.

I think you're probably not far off base. I think TPTB knew that a long list of projects would have components some would like, but some wouldn't, and are gambling that just enough people like just enough of the projects just enough to push the thing over the top. This thing could easily go 51-49 either way.

EBAH - No worries. It's all good. I don't think anyone here wants OKC to fail, we all just may have differing visions of how to get the job done.

[shane453]

There is an argument here because people mean different things by the word suburb. Some are referring to suburban style development and some reffering to suburban cities (in the political boundary sense). Consider this as you continue debating or whatever it is you are doing

[Platemaker]

I'd consider anything outside of the blue... including that within the OKC city limits 'suburban.'

[shane453]

I'd consider anything outside of the blue... including that within the OKC city limits 'suburban.'

Culturally and architecturally but not politically