Newly Approved Projects Downtown

[Just the facts]

You and others of you who are in a small (yet vocal) minority can do whatever you want. You don't even live here so good luck with getting representation on the council.

By "The rest of us are moving on" I meant the rest of American society.

[BDP]

The fastest way we can kill the maps brand and downtown subsidy is to continue to try to co-opt it into a war on the burbs, AKA 90% of the working, taxpaying and most importantly, voting citizens of the city.

That's exactly what Mr. White is doing. In fact, it's much broader than that. He is essentially saying that the city should not spend money on safety and infrastructure improvements unless nearby businesses and residents privately contribute "enough" to the projects. I can only guess what his idea of "nearby" or "enough" is, but in this case we know that 28 entities are contributing almost a quarter of the initial cost (23.7%), so I can only assume it's not enough unless it's much greater than that.

Does this mean he will vote against infrastructure improvements for Ward 4 in the future unless private investment in those projects totals significantly more than the amount pledged here? I know for a fact that many, many people have voted for and paid for infrastructure projects within this 600 square mile city that they will rarely, if ever, use. I don't remember a big push for matching private investment contributions for the last round of bond issues that benefited a lot of the more rural areas of the city. It seems some people think that MAPS is the only public investment this city does and are using its historical focus on the core to manufacture this "war on the burbs" idea.

The reality is that there is just no other area of the city that creates a better return on public investment than downtown. It's central location and current infrastructure make it more accessible for a greater number of residents than any other part of the city. It's simply a utilitarian conclusion to spend money on downtown, where the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people is more likely. There is no doubt that a $2.9 million dollar investment in ward 4 would affect far less people and generate a far less immediate return than the same investment downtown, unless it was an investment necessary to sustain Tinker Air Force base (which has happened).

It's sad that this "what about me" backlash is creeping into our city politics. Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

[Dubya61]

The reality is that there is just no other area of the city that creates a better return on public investment than downtown. It's central location and current infrastructure make it more accessible for a greater number of residents than any other part of the city. It's simply a utilitarian conclusion to spend money on downtown, where the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people is more likely. There is no doubt that a $2.9 million dollar investment in ward 4 would affect far less people and generate a far less immediate return than the same investment downtown, unless it was an investment necessary to sustain Tinker Air Force base (which has happened).

It's sad that this "what about me" backlash is creeping into our city politics. Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

Right as rain. Steve Lackmeyer's article: Living and Working by the Tracks ? Without Investment Downtown | OKC Central also cited in post #49, says it too.

[mkjeeves]

Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

That's what it started out being and what the citizens of OKC mostly support. That was the vision of Norick, build downtown to serve OKC et al. That is not the "let the suburbs rot" we keep hearing from some on this forum, repeatedly. That's what I spoke to. Not what you spoke to.

You want to kill maps and hamstring downtown subsidy. Keep it up.

[HangryHippo]

That's exactly what Mr. White is doing. In fact, it's much broader than that. He is essentially saying that the city should not spend money on safety and infrastructure improvements unless nearby businesses and residents privately contribute "enough" to the projects. I can only guess what his idea of "nearby" or "enough" is, but in this case we know that 28 entities are contributing almost a quarter of the initial cost (23.7%), so I can only assume it's not enough unless it's much greater than that.

Does this mean he will vote against infrastructure improvements for Ward 4 in the future unless private investment in those projects totals significantly more than the amount pledged here? I know for a fact that many, many people have voted for and paid for infrastructure projects within this 600 square mile city that they will rarely, if ever, use. I don't remember a big push for matching private investment contributions for the last round of bond issues that benefited a lot of the more rural areas of the city. It seems some people think that MAPS is the only public investment this city does and are using its historical focus on the core to manufacture this "war on the burbs" idea.

The reality is that there is just no other area of the city that creates a better return on public investment than downtown. It's central location and current infrastructure make it more accessible for a greater number of residents than any other part of the city. It's simply a utilitarian conclusion to spend money on downtown, where the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people is more likely. There is no doubt that a $2.9 million dollar investment in ward 4 would affect far less people and generate a far less immediate return than the same investment downtown, unless it was an investment necessary to sustain Tinker Air Force base (which has happened).

It's sad that this "what about me" backlash is creeping into our city politics. Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

Wonderful post, BDP. And of course, we'll never see Pete White demand that projects in his ward require the people "close enough" privately contribute "enough".

[mkjeeves]

To be fair, aren't we really hearing this repeatedly only because it is being said by a couple people, many times a day?

I don't know. You guys are hanging Mr White up because he listened to his constituents that have concerns. Why do they have those concerns?

If I have to be the singular person who stands up to the regular posters on this well read forum who call for that, I can. But it's tiring when the rest of you bite your tongue or show agreement. Probably more effective if I just go ahead and make my desires and concerns directly to the councilman, the mayor and the other powers that be.

[HangryHippo]

I don't know. You guys are hanging Mr White up because he listened to his constituents that have concerns. Why do they have those concerns?

They're whiny and/or selfish?

[HangryHippo]

To be fair, aren't we really hearing this repeatedly only because it is being said by a couple people, many times a day?

HA. Precisely.

[LakeEffect]

I don't know. You guys are hanging Mr White up because he listened to his constituents that have concerns. Why do they have those concerns?

If I have to be the singular person who stands up to the regular posters on this well read forum who call for that, I can. But it's tiring when the rest of you bite your lip. Probably more effective if I just go ahead and make my desires and concerns directly to the councilman, the mayor and the other powers that be.

Which constituents? I posted this in the Quiet Zone thread too. The population spread in Ward 4 actually leans urban, and how many of them do you think he's actually talked with instead of the far-flung people?

[adaniel]

I think some of you are overthinking this. The vote of one councilmember signifies nothing except the fact that he's an ornery old councilman.

I'm quite suprised that Griener didn't oppose this. Isn't he the champion of the taxpayer? Or maybe he is smart enough to recogize good policy?

[betts]

Aren't people really saying that people should pay for services relative to density? If you choose to live on more land, especially at the far edges of the city, it stretches city resources more and you should pay more for city services. That doesn't sound like letting anyone rot.

[mkjeeves]

Aren't people really saying that people should pay for services relative to density? If you choose to live on more land, especially at the far edges of the city, it stretches city resources more and you should pay more for city services. That doesn't sound like letting anyone rot.

One of the actual quotes was indeed "let it rot".


If you want to make the other argument, back it up with facts, tax revenue to the city vs cost to the city, broken down by ward would be fine. I don't think downtown will fair so well with all the propping up we've done lately.

[mkjeeves]

Of course the real gist of your post in the context of this thread is it does prove the point...some vocal downtowners do indeed want to make the divisive fight of Downtown against the Burbs.

[betts]

If one person has said, "let it rot" then it's a bit of hyperbole to imply that you're hearing it repeatedly from "some". And most people's argument with city services' costs relate to people living on large pieces of land at the periphery of the city.I don't really understand what you mean by "propping up" either. Downtown would fare quite well, I suspect, considering property tax dollars paid relative to density as compared to city outskirts. You too are free to come up with hard facts to support your allegations.

[mkjeeves]

The burden of proof is with the person putting forward the argument. Backpedal from your argument if you want.

[vaflyer]

Aren't people really saying that people should pay for services relative to density? If you choose to live on more land, especially at the far edges of the city, it stretches city resources more and you should pay more for city services. That doesn't sound like letting anyone rot.

The city could also just de-annex those parts of the city that are on the far edges. I most cases, however, cities do not de-annex those far out areas. Why? One likely explanation is they contribute more in taxes then they require in services.

[betts]

Of course the real gist of your post in the context of this thread is it does prove the point...some vocal downtowners do indeed want to make the divisive fight of Downtown against the Burbs.

When looking at "fighting" here and on several other threads, it is usually you doing the fighting, I've noticed. Personally, I have lived in Deer Creek, Quail Creek and Nichols Hills before living downtown so I can say I've experienced a lot of different degrees of density. I also, clearly, have no reason or excuse for being anti-suburb. i think there are good reasons for living in the city and in the suburbs, depending on time of life and lifestyle. When I lived in Deer Creek, if someone had said that I needed to pay extra since I lived farther out and was stretching city services, my response would have been, "OK, that makes sense."

[Just the facts]

The city could also just de-annex those parts of the city that are on the far edges. I most cases, however, cities do not de-annex those far out areas. Why? One likely explanation is they contribute more in taxes then they require in services.

In which case we would be doing them a favor but cutting them lose. Alas, low density sprawl doesn't generate more tax dollars than it consumes. If it did all levels of government would be swimming in cash.

[LakeEffect]

How can that map be right? Deep Deuce has far more than 1000 people in it.

I think the visualization of the color gradient might be off a bit.

[mkjeeves]

In which case we would be doing them a favor but cutting them lose. Alas, low density sprawl doesn't generate more tax dollars than it consumes. If it did all levels of government would be swimming in cash.

Our low density sprawl was swimming in enough cash we could do the maps projects and send umpteen millions to fix downtown. Funny how some would like to rewrite history to advance their own agenda.

[vaflyer]

Alas, low density sprawl doesn't generate more tax dollars than it consumes.

Then why doesn't the city just de-annex those areas that are not core to the city and that consume more resources then they generate?

Unrelated note: Storms are forming rapidly to the SW of the metro. Be weather aware!

[LakeEffect]

Aww man. We were having so much fun.

[betts]

An interesting commentary by Steve about this subject.

Living and Working by the Tracks ? Without Investment Downtown | OKC Central

I'm not surprised. More people don't live downtown than live downtown. I doubt many of them analyze the effects of MAPS or why the projects are most effective because they are centrally located. People see things and wish they were closer to home and within easy driving distance in familiar surroundings with no parking issues. I doubt they give it any deeper thought than that.

[BDP]

That's what it started out being and what the citizens of OKC mostly support. That was the vision of Norick, build downtown to serve OKC et al. That is not the "let the suburbs rot" we keep hearing from some on this forum, repeatedly. That's what I spoke to. Not what you spoke to.

You want to kill maps and hamstring downtown subsidy. Keep it up.

I didn't say let it rot and I don't feel that way. I think this idea that it's urban vs. suburbs is manufactured by people like Mr. White or anyone who looks as investment in downtown as separate issue from investment in any other part of the city. I'm saying that we should always look at the opportunity cost of investing downtown vs. in a Ward like Mr. Whites. Dollar for dollar, downtown's going to win that analysis most of the time. I'm saying that continued investment in downtown is what is best for the city as a whole, including Ward 4, including all of its suburban districts. That is not an argument that the suburbs should rot or any kind of position that's going to kill or hamstring anything. It's when people begin to no longer realize the exponential return of investment in downtown, like Mr. White, then there could be problems.

[mkjeeves]

Steve's best words on the subject IMO are actually here:

http://www.okctalk.com/ask-anything-...tml#post619234