New MAPS Website- MAPS Facts.org

[Larry OKC]

Well you're wrong there. "Continuing the momentum" means escaping the recession, continuing to rank at the top of every list of rankings that are put out, and competing for jobs in a tough economy. That's what it's all about.

I agree that MAPS 3 would be a significant "booster shot" if you will, regarding momentum. Here is a quote by the Chamber's Mr. Williams:

NewsOK

MAPS 3 proposal generates debate (Oklahoman, 11/25/09)

Roy Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, said Oklahoma City’s momentum isn’t about continuing a tax; it is about continuing to improve the city through initiatives like MAPS that have earned the city accolades in national publications such as Forbes, BusinessWeek and others.

“That kind of momentum comes along once in a lifetime. That’s the kind of momentum that is taking place in Oklahoma City and is being recognized nationally and internationally,” Williams said. “Every city in the United States is envious of what is going on in Oklahoma City right now, and that is the kind of momentum we are looking at continuing.”

The two are intertwined since they are talking about paying for this momentum with the tax. If it wasn’t about the tax, there wouldn’t be a need for the election. For him to say this isn’t about “continuing a tax” simply defies explanation.

Your point on the tax is utter semantics. You know that there is no tax increase by continuing a tax that we have paid since 1993.

I agree it is semantics, and it is a game that the City is playing in trying to spin a tax increase as anything but. The bolded part is factually incorrect. The 1 penny sales tax does NOT go all the way back to 1993 (MAPS 1). I thought that too but ran across info that showed that there was a 2 1/2 year gap between MAPS and MAPS for Kids. There was a 3/4 cent tax that lasted about that length, but it didn't start and stop neatly. There was about a 3 month gap on the MAPS side and a 3 month overlap on the MAPS for Kids side.

This was alluded to in the same article as Mr. William's quote:

In fact, the MAPS penny sales tax has expired before. There was no MAPS sales tax between July 1999, when the first MAPS tax expired, and January 2002, when the MAPS For Kids tax began, according to city records.

...not that public safety still has anything to do with MAPS...

I agree. Did I say anywhere that it did?

Anybody who has ever referred to the Ford Center is a highly ig'nant individual and that's all there is to that.

I agree. The Mayor has pointed out the Cox has "Convention Center" in it's name (this happened when the Myriad got renamed the Cox Convention Center), he said we don't really have a convention center but a sports arena with some meeting rooms added to it. I don't really see the Ford as being a C.C. either but that isn't what the 1993 MAPS ballot states and the Mayor too (see below). So then, are you saying that the good folks at the City (that created the MAPS ballot) and the Mayor are "highly ig'nant"?

I'm not saying that the Cox and Ford are Convention Centers but I can certainly see where the 3 convention centers thing comes from.

The money that is being used to completely renovate the Myriad Gardens and the surrounding downtown streets is coming from the TIF district around the Devon Tower project. Typically when a $750 million skyscraper is built the TIF around it goes to utilities for such a large project, but instead Devon is not taking that money and has instead requested that it be put back into the downtown community to make various improvements. The city has loaned the City the TIF money upfront in order to get the improvements made before the tower is finished rather than several years after the TIF is collecting property tax from the tower.

So yes, Devon has funded the Myriad renovations as well as the downtown streetscape projects. And then for the opposition to confuse this with a Devon demand for a downtown park isn't just insulting to Devon (whose generosity is completely renovating the Myriad gardens and every downtown street) but it's also incredibly uneducated. What more do you expect from the opposition, besides incredibly uneducated conclusions and offensive remarks against downtown leaders?

Looks like we are in agreement now, if by "Devon has funded" you mean it is basically acting like a bank or a finance company. They are simply providing a loan (but this is different from your original statement).

3rd of all the downtown park is not a request by Devon Energy, that is the Myriad Garden renovations, which Devon is paying for themselves. ...

[Larry OKC]

Larry, I've always understood your point regarding whether the tax would increase or not, but isn't this really semantics? To the voter, there would be no discernable change in the tax rate, were the MAPS tax not allowed to expire. I suspect what the city is trying to get across to the voter is that if the MAPS tax continues, their sales tax will be no higher than it is right now. Technically, both sides are correct on this issue, I believe. So, one slightly disingenuous statement probably cancels out the other.

A agree, it is semantics and the City is very good at it (see the same misleading claim in previous elections). As long as the spin continues to be effective, they will use it whenever they can.

Haven't you wondered that if any of this was on a "needs" basis (rather than "wouldn't it be nice") that they are waiting until now to consider this? By that, why the precise and exact timing, where the tax doesn't take effect until after the Ford tax expires (no overlap which would obviously be a tax increase). And they don't allow even one day to pass where the tax would drop and it would be obvious that it would be a tax increase. Just a coincidence? LOL

I do have to appreciate how exacting City leadership is in their planning. They actually have it down to the day and the hour when the "emergency" is going to begin and end (before it is replaced by yet another "emergency" with MAPS 4). The emergency apparently begins immediately upon passage, yet they aren't going to start collecting the tax to do anything about the emergency until nearly 4 months later. One would thnk if it was a true emergency, they (1) wouldn't have waited the couple of months to put it to a vote and then (2) wait nearly 4 months before collecting the tax. Oh but that's right, if the taxes overlapped, it would be an obvious tax increase...LOL

From the MAPS 3 Ordinance:

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTIONS I AND 2; APPROVAL BY CITY VOTERS REQUIRED. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance shall become effective from and after 12:00 am. on the 1st day of April, 2010, but only if this Ordinance is approved prior to said date by a majority vote of the qualified, registered voters of The City of Oklahoma City voting on such question at a special election to be called for that purpose by the City Council of the City and to be held within the City as provided by law; provided, if this Ordinance is not so approved by City voters prior to 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2010, then the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 hereof shall become null and void and of no force and effect whatever.

SECTION 4. EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it being immediately necessary for the preservation of the peace, health, safety and public good of The City of Oklahoma City and the inhabitants thereof that the provisions of this ordinance be put into full force and effect, an emergency is hereby declared to exist by reason whereof this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the date provided herein as provided by law.

Funny how if it doesn’t pass, the “emergency” apparently ceases to exist.

...But, the inaccuracy doesn't really even relate to the Ford Center, as, once the new convention center is constructed, the Cox Convention Center will presumably cease to exist as one, leaving us with one and overflow space again, rather than 3 convention centers. The number 3 is an incorrect one, regardless of what the Ford Center is or isn't.

Although I think you are correct about the Cox ceasing to exist, the Mayor has stated (even recently) that no decision has been made on the future of the Cox. He said they didn't have to make that decision now and he would leave that up to future leadership. There are advantages to keeping it around (like the "spare" arena for big 12 events etc). Since the $60M in improvements to the Cox (the added meeting rooms) from MAPS 1 will just start paying for themselves (plus any additional improvements they are planning on making to it for the still unsecured hockey team), seems rather wasteful to bulldoze it.

And again, the inaccuracy in the MAPS opposition's point is not who is paying for the Myriad Gardens makeover, but rather that Larry Nichols has requested the 70 acre park. The opposition is again either completely uneducated about the plans for MAPS (versus the Myriad Gardens), do not know their city geography or are deliberately attempting to mislead the voters. This isn't just about semantics.

Hmmm, my response was the what I saw as the inaccuracy of Spartan's comment, not the opposition (he covered that pretty well).

[flintysooner]

Has anyone thought that there may be other reasons why sales tax collections in OKC have been down the last 9 months or so other than a bad economy. We are supposed to be the number 1 most recession proof city in the United States if I am not mistaken. I wonder how much of an increase in tax revenue that Moore, Norman, and MWC have had in the last year or so. I wonder if it is a significant enough increase to offset our decrease. Just something to think about....Thought I might bring this over from the I-40 and Council thread, page 8. I hope that it doesnt offend anyone.

Here is the link to the Sales and Use Tax News Releases published by the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Regarding your point I've lived in Moore, Norman, and Oklahoma City. Our children live in Edmond and Oklahoma City. We have property in more than one place. I know many people who operate substantial businesses in Oklahoma City but live outside the City limits proper and vice versa.

I certainly do not begrudge the smaller cities such as Moore, Warr Acres, Midwest City the sales tax revenue they manage to collect. All of those communities have to provide services and sales tax revenue is a significant source.

It seems to me that the very fact that we citizens are all spread out through the entire metropolitan area is even a greater reason why we should all support a vital, dynamic, prosperous downtown area of our principal City.

And while I'm thinking about it I would support increasing some additional sales tax beyond the MAPS tax. I'm pretty sure that both the firefighters and police forces are understaffed and should be improved. But that's not what this next election is about.

[BOBTHEBUILDER]

Here is the link to the Sales and Use Tax News Releases published by the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Regarding your point I've lived in Moore, Norman, and Oklahoma City. Our children live in Edmond and Oklahoma City. We have property in more than one place. I know many people who operate substantial businesses in Oklahoma City but live outside the City limits proper and vice versa.

I certainly do not begrudge the smaller cities such as Moore, Warr Acres, Midwest City the sales tax revenue they manage to collect. All of those communities have to provide services and sales tax revenue is a significant source.

It seems to me that the very fact that we citizens are all spread out through the entire metropolitan area is even a greater reason why we should all support a vital, dynamic, prosperous downtown area of our principal City.

And while I'm thinking about it I would support increasing some additional sales tax beyond the MAPS tax. I'm pretty sure that both the firefighters and police forces are understaffed and should be improved. But that's not what this next election is about.

Thanks for the link, after a brief look without a calculator, tax revenue collection is just as I suspected it would be. If OKC is down, Moore, MWC, Yukon and Norman, are at roughly the same levels or an increase.

I dont disagree with those cities needing to collect tax revenue. I am merely suggesting that we need to keep the tax revenue from OKC in OKC and not let the surrounding cities capitalize on our inability to continue to capture the revenue. It is obvious that our city government relies heavily upon this tax revenue to provide services to our citizens.

I am all for the redevelopment and enhancement of downtown OKC. However, I dont think that this development will bring in the added tax revenue that we are losing to surrounding cities every day. I think that we need to address the development of the outer portions of the city, so that we can keep the tax revenue in OKC. Then take that increased tax revenue and invest it city services and a prosperous downtown development.

No matter what we build downtown, we had better compete for tax dollars in the outer ring of city with these surrounding cities or we will continue to go further and further in the hole. In my opinion, this has everything to do with this election.

[DavidGlover]

Maps Facts website - if you are explaining you are losing the argument. Almost no one now is going to be swayed by the "facts" on any of the websites. I put some "facts" together in a fun parody video, sort of.. video YouTube Link The Math: The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster. When confronted the Chamber president Roy Williams agreed.

[flintysooner]

Thanks for the link, after a brief look without a calculator, tax revenue collection is just as I suspected it would be. If OKC is down, Moore, MWC, Yukon and Norman, are at roughly the same levels or an increase.

I dont disagree with those cities needing to collect tax revenue. I am merely suggesting that we need to keep the tax revenue from OKC in OKC and not let the surrounding cities capitalize on our inability to continue to capture the revenue. It is obvious that our city government relies heavily upon this tax revenue to provide services to our citizens.

I am all for the redevelopment and enhancement of downtown OKC. However, I dont think that this development will bring in the added tax revenue that we are losing to surrounding cities every day. I think that we need to address the development of the outer portions of the city, so that we can keep the tax revenue in OKC. Then take that increased tax revenue and invest it city services and a prosperous downtown development.

No matter what we build downtown, we had better compete for tax dollars in the outer ring of city with these surrounding cities or we will continue to go further and further in the hole. In my opinion, this has everything to do with this election.

Moore was down in the last two reports with the same sales tax rate. Norman is up but with a higher rate. Moore has been aggressively pursuing commercial development but it has taken years and lots of hard work on the part of many, many people. The lesson of Moore is that a community can better itself and can make itself more attractive to development but it is a long term process and takes a lot of community support. If you open your business in Moore and join the local Chamber of Commerce then your opening will be celebrated by a rather amazingly large group of your fellow business owners and citizens. That's pretty significant.

It is relevant in thinking about this MAPS project to consider that one of the biggest complaints from Moore residents several years ago was the lack of retail. The city administration took that into account as well as the need for sales tax revenue.

Sales Tax financing of communities is not done everywhere and there are some definite issues with it. But that's another discussion.

As for Oklahoma City competing for business against Moore and other areas I know the economic development teams in all of these cities do compete but there are limits to what can be done and should be done for that matter. For instance Oklahoma City is definitely working to try to secure the outlet mall project. My understanding generally is that cities compete very vigorously but also work together to secure bigger projects for the area and even the state. But it does little good to gain an enterprise that can't really sustain itself so there has to be a good deal of restraint.

I personally remain convinced that continuing MAPS is the best thing that can be accomplished both for Oklahoma City proper and the greater metropolitan area.

[kevinpate]

... I put some "facts" together in a fun parody video, ...

Only trouble is, as midtowner noted elsewhere, your math doesn't compute. On the flip side, you're not trying to pass it off as accurate. It is thus very appropriate you stated your parody contains "facts" and not actual facts.

[DavidGlover]

Midtowner obviously did not watch the video - go ahead and watch it see the full math and then comment - The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster.

[kevinpate]

Midtowner obviously did not watch the video - go ahead and watch it see the full math and then comment - The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster.

David, I did watch it. Say parody to me and I'm probably on board for a laugh, until I discover not everyone does good parody. Such was the case here.

As for the math, it does not compute, even when you have the allowance to take into account tax dollars non residents pay. If you're going to pretend it does, then your logic hasn't changed a lot since the Ford center debates.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner obviously did not watch the video - go ahead and watch it see the full math and then comment - The figures come from Tom Anderson - project coordinator for the city, a past city budget director, and Mark Snead /OSU Economics Professor and OKC's Budget Forecaster.

I really don't care if the numbers you got looked like this and came straight out of the King James Bible. They're still fundamentally flawed. And if Tom Anderson really said that the average family of four will pay $4,000 over the course of this tax, then he was just as wrong as you are.

The math is very simple, really. Work through it next time before you publish a video on Youtube showing that simple math is beyond your grasp.

[iron76hd]

The math is very simple, really. Work through it next time before you publish a video on Youtube showing that simple math is beyond your grasp.

Get your side of the argument on MAPS3 to get their numbers right! It's not our job to worry about that. Get your side to publish the "truth". You go talk to Tom Anderson. Tell him to work through the numbers. You give him a lesson. Family Law/Economics Expert.

[andy157]

David, I did watch it. Say parody to me and I'm probably on board for a laugh, until I discover not everyone does good parody. Such was the case here.

As for the math, it does not compute, even when you have the allowance to take into account tax dollars non residents pay. If you're going to pretend it does, then your logic hasn't changed a lot since the Ford center debates.

kevinpate, you, betts, and midtowner have each made your point, which is that in your opinion the math does not compute. Whether or not the math computes I don't know, and frankly don't care. I'm not making any attempt to defend Mr. Glover or his math, except it's not his math, or so he says.

He has said over and over that Tom Anderson is responsible for the math. Is he, I don't know. When Mr. Glover claims he was provided the math by Mr. Anderson, is he being truthful, I don't know.

But in all fairness if you or someone else really cares, then why not give Tom a call. I happen to know Tom Anderson and have always found him to be a nice guy, and have no reason to believe that he would, and/or could, verify or deny Mr. Glovers claim.

[Midtowner]

Get your side of the argument on MAPS3 to get their numbers right! It's not our job to worry about that. Get your side to publish the "truth". You go talk to Tom Anderson. Tell him to work through the numbers. You give him a lesson. Family Law/Economics Expert.

I haven't actually seen David cite as exactly where he drew that number from. He says Tom Anderson, but I don't know in what context. Ordinarily when we cite numbers like this, we cite not only the source, but when and where that information from that source appears.

[iron76hd]

He has said over and over that Tom Anderson is responsible for the math. Is he, I don't know. When Mr. Glover claims he was provided the math by Mr. Anderson, is he being truthful, I don't know.

But in all fairness if you or someone else really cares, then why not give Tom a call. I happen to know Tom Anderson and have always found him to be a nice guy, and have no reason to believe that he would, and/or could, verify or deny Mr. Glovers claim.

Ahhhh. The voice of reason. I agree. Thank you Andy. Thank you David. That was funny. I'm smart enough to remember after December 8th. We'll all be in this deal together one way or another and I can say I enjoyed the parody.

[betts]

I'll be happy to call him and verify those "facts" if he's willing to talk to me. Probably won't happen until Monday, however, since I'm sure he's another one of the people who doesn't work weekends. But, anyone with the ability to multiply and divide more than two places can poke giant holes in them, so I'll be shocked if he says they're his.

Regardless, the anti-tax people and the alarmists multiple daily expenditures by 7 years to come up with a figure they hope people will find shocking. The truth is, however, that most of us waste as much money a day as we're giving to our city government for MAPS. If you smoke, you spend more for a pack of cigarettes a day than MAPS will cost you, and anyone who thinks they're not a waste of money is fooling themselves. I spend more a day on my vice, a cup of coffee at Starbucks, than I give to the government for MAPS. We buy magazines, cheetos, cokes, liquor, etc, none of which add any value to our lives and think nothing of it. Add up what you spend a year on things you don't really need, some of which actually are harmful to your health, and you'll come up with a figure almost assuredly far more than you spend on MAPS.

[andy157]

I'll be happy to call him and verify those "facts" if he's willing to talk to me. Probably won't happen until Monday, however, since I'm sure he's another one of the people who doesn't work weekends. But, anyone with the ability to multiply and divide more than two places can poke giant holes in them, so I'll be shocked if he says they're his.

But look at the bright side. If those numbers don't belong to Tom then you will have gained a bigger hammer. If those are his numbers then (A) you can advise him that his math skills are lacking, or (B) you will find out these/his numbers are correct. Either way you can report back as to your findings

[betts]

Andy, the problem is that the people who think like David Glover and Mark Shannon could care less about the facts. Do you think if I find that they're not Anderson's figures Glover will take his video down or it will be removed from Shannon's site? Not on your life. So, the people who read posts here are the only ones who will be informed, and he's undoubtedly busily spreading his misinformation wherever he can.

Thank heavens he had no effect on the last vote, when the same misinformation was being spread. What I don't understand is why, if their cause is just, the truth isn't enough.

[kevinpate]

Andy, with respect, the math doesn't work irrespective of where the numbers arise.

Generally when someone advances an alleged fact, there is a clear source of the information, not a suggestion to call X and PRESS X into telling you the person tossing around information for their agenda is correct in their interpretation.

Bottom line: math is math, and the payment of taxes are the payment of taxes. What's presented in the parody is a blatent falsehood used to advance an agenda.

Sales taxes are paid by residents, non-residents and businesses, in every universe, except perhaps the pseudo universe of those who choose to alter the truth.

The formulas used in the alleged paraody first drops one number out by conveniently, and dishonestly, excluding business and non-residents of OKC, which also pay the MAPs sales taxes.

Then the parody script advocates, oh, 'honest' time, non residents cover 30%, so let's take that out and then claim it's 1000 paid per person who is an OKC resident, or 4,000 for a family of four.

The parody script, which did not write itself, deliberately applies the rest of the collected sales tax solely to OKC residents.

The only words for doing that are ignorance or dishonesty.
The alleged avg. could only be considered an honest calculation if only OKC residents pay the balance of the sales taxes collected.

Of course, that is simply false, though perhaps many bsuinesses wish otherwise. However, local businesses also incur taxes on their purchases.

When someone's math wants to suggests an average family of four spends more on sales taxable purchases in a year's time than the total gross income of an avg. family of four, then there is either unintentional ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Given the past fuzzy math of one of the posters, who actually brought us this particular parody, it's not too difficult to rule out the first possibility.

Either way, it's not improper to call it out for what it is:

Poor math that ignores the reality of tax collection in favor of trying to advance a particular agenda.

Perhaps the Not This MAPs agenda would be better advanced on facts, not falsehoods. However, some of those advocates flinging around and defending the falsehoods via the parody does suggest a certain aversion to relying on facts.

Pity. Before a sense of desperation crept in, and the shift went to scare tactics 101, there were actually some decent arguments for that particular agenda.

[Doug Loudenback]

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received.

[kevinpate]

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received.

to da Dawg!

When I grow up, I wanna be like you! Only trouble is, this grandpa don't really wanna grow up.

[andy157]

Andy, with respect, the math doesn't work irrespective of where the numbers arise.

Generally when someone advances an alleged fact, there is a clear source of the information, not a suggestion to call X and PRESS X into telling you the person tossing around information for their agenda is correct in their interpretation.

Bottom line: math is math, and the payment of taxes are the payment of taxes. What's presented in the parody is a blatent falsehood used to advance an agenda.

Sales taxes are paid by residents, non-residents and businesses, in every universe, except perhaps the pseudo universe of those who choose to alter the truth.

The formulas used in the alleged paraody first drops one number out by conveniently, and dishonestly, excluding business and non-residents of OKC, which also pay the MAPs sales taxes.

Then the parody script advocates, oh, 'honest' time, non residents cover 30%, so let's take that out and then claim it's 1000 paid per person who is an OKC resident, or 4,000 for a family of four.

The parody script, which did not write itself, deliberately applies the rest of the collected sales tax solely to OKC residents.

The only words for doing that are ignorance or dishonesty.
The alleged avg. could only be considered an honest calculation if only OKC residents pay the balance of the sales taxes collected.

Of course, that is simply false, though perhaps many bsuinesses wish otherwise. However, local businesses also incur taxes on their purchases.

When someone's math wants to suggests an average family of four spends more on sales taxable purchases in a year's time than the total gross income of an avg. family of four, then there is either unintentional ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Given the past fuzzy math of one of the posters, who actually brought us this particular parody, it's not too difficult to rule out the first possibility.

Either way, it's not improper to call it out for what it is:

Poor math that ignores the reality of tax collection in favor of trying to advance a particular agenda.

Perhaps the Not This MAPs agenda would be better advanced on facts, not falsehoods. However, some of those advocates flinging around and defending the falsehoods via the parody does suggest a certain aversion to relying on facts.

Pity. Before a sense of desperation crept in, and the shift went to scare tactics 101, there were actually some decent arguments for that particular agenda.

Whether someone uses fuzzy math by mistake, uses it intentually to mislead, or by failing to verify, passes bad information, that person and their math, should be called out.

I understand there should be a clear source of where the information came from, and maybe a person calling the facts into question shouldn't have to call. But that seemed to me the best way to call his hand.

I've called the City out numerus times for advancing misinformation, and let me say this, they are very good at how they do it. Misinformation is misinformation, and if it is put forward for the intent purpose to mislead someone, thats wrong no matter who is doing it. In my opinion, which by the way, is generally formed by using their numbers and documented words, the City does it quite often. And sadly gets away with it more times than not.

[Spartan]

I agree. The Mayor has pointed out the Cox has "Convention Center" in it's name (this happened when the Myriad got renamed the Cox Convention Center), he said we don't really have a convention center but a sports arena with some meeting rooms added to it. I don't really see the Ford as being a C.C. either but that isn't what the 1993 MAPS ballot states and the Mayor too (see below). So then, are you saying that the good folks at the City (that created the MAPS ballot) and the Mayor are "highly ig'nant"?

I'm not saying that the Cox and Ford are Convention Centers but I can certainly see where the 3 convention centers thing comes from.




Looks like we are in agreement now, if by "Devon has funded" you mean it is basically acting like a bank or a finance company. They are simply providing a loan (but this is different from your original statement).

If it's true that the ballot referred to the Ford Center as a convention center, especially with an actual convention center project elsewhere on the ballot, then that's pretty bad. As for the Cox, calling it a sports arena with meeting rooms around it is fairly accurate. It is after all, smaller than the convention centers in Tulsa, Omaha, and Wichita..and those aren't even close to the cities we want to compete with.

As for Devon and the park, you're missing my point: Yes, they provided the loan, but that's not where Devon's involvement with the park begins. The money for the Myriad Gardens renovations is all coming directly from Devon Tower. In fact that money will never even go close to the General Fund because it will be collected through the TIF district. The park as well as the downtown streetscape are all being completely funded by the Devon TIF which could have just as easily gone to infrastructure for Devon.

Calling the park a request by Devon is just really erroneous on many counts.

[Spartan]

The math is a lot simpler than all the above talk. Here's the formula

Amount we pay = no change in amount we been payin'
We get lots of cool stuff.

Expressions of gratitude for this math lesson will be most graciously received.

Doug wins.

[DavidGlover]

from: tom.anderson@okc.gov

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

[Larry OKC]

Regardless, the anti-tax people and the alarmists multiple daily expenditures by 7 years to come up with a figure they hope people will find shocking.

Walmart does the same thing in their recent series of ads (look at all the money you are wasting by shopping elsewhere, shop at Walmart and save "X" amount of money/month/year).

Is that being "alarmist"? Or is simply pointing out that those few pennies a day, a nickel here, a dime there all add up?

Both sides use the numbers that support their position the best. Hopefully, neither side uses numbers that are incorrect (hurts credibility). But if you use numbers from the other side that are incorrect, that seems to be fair game (helpful if you point out that the numbers are incorrect and can provide a link or something that shows these numbers really are from that source).

IF the numbers cited in the "parody" are really the numbers the City has, do you honestly think they are going to be straightforward with it in their pitch? No, they are going to spin it where they can so it doesn't sound so bad. If they can't spin it enough, avoid mentioning it as much as possible and focus on the "penny" angle.

If their numbers are wrong, leads one to ask what other numbers are wrong too. If the City's numbers are wrong on the cost per person, how accurate are their costs of the projects going to be? If they are inconsistent on the private investment amounts that MAPS 1 has generated ($2B, $3B and now $5B, including some things that don't seem to have any relation to MAPS like the I-40 relocation and the Memorial), how accurate are their projections on increased jobs etc from the Convention Center?

The pro-MAPS says it is only a penny tax. The anti-group says it is a $777M tax. Both true statements. Both sides are trying to put it into perspective (at least from their point of view).