MAPS 3 Press release

[flintysooner]

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.

So we've been told. And the county can't help because it's in the city and so on.

We (well family not me) were there before the City ever was.

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 am certainly interested in economic development. Some proposals clearly have the potential to attract development and benefit tourism. But I am skeptical about those and I am entirely unconvinced about other elements of the proposal.

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.

No doubt. Still it doesn't seem too much to ask that the City provide at least minimal support to those that live within its boundaries.

I suppose I could move somewhere else.

[betts]

I don't think anyone here wants OKC to fail, we all just may have differing visions of how to get the job done.

It's often difficult to determine tone on message boards, so I'm going to tell you what mine is. Friendly curiosity. Many of us have a vision for the city that is at least similar to MAPS. The above statement seems to imply that perhaps you have a different vision. Is that so? And, if so, what is your vision? If is is different, do you have any plans for how it could be implemented?

[mugofbeer]

[QUOTE=kevinpate;256539]> 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. QUOTE]

Why would you think that the plan has a better chance of passing if the State Fairgrounds improvements are left out? The fairgrounds bring in more out of town tax revenue than any other attraction in our city with the plethora of equine and agriculteral events, the state fair and other events at the State Fair Arena.

IMO, the State Fairgrounds should be expanded south across Reno and connected to the OK River system.

[hoya]

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

Still nicer than I would have been.

[Hawk405359]

Why would you think that the plan has a better chance of passing if the State Fairgrounds improvements are left out? The fairgrounds bring in more out of town tax revenue than any other attraction in our city with the plethora of equine and agriculteral events, the state fair and other events at the State Fair Arena.

This part worries me about it. The state fair grounds don't sit vacant the rest of the year, they're full of trade shows and ag shows of various kinds. But it's not really (just) city-dwellers who use it, some events draw people from across the country and the world (like the roping competition they had). Those people aren't coming in for NBA, they're coming in because the venue is drawing some major trade shows and events. If people don't take the year round events into account when they consider them as a piece of the MAPS puzzle, I'd worry that it may cause more people to vote no.

As for the senior aquatic centers, if there's one thing I've learned about politics, it's that seniors vote. Including a measure for them is a good way to try to win their support for the measure as a whole.

[adaniel]

Well if you need confirmation that passage of MAPS III is not a sure thing...

Oklahoma City leader opposes Maps 3 - KFOR

[lasomeday]

So, how does the Central Park add to the Union Station? I don't see how it accenuates the architecture there.

So, they are going to destroy the rest of the buildings?

What about the Historic Original Film Exchange Building? They could have designed around it!

[khook]

walters has been the odd man out since he has been elected. I won't be surprised if he ends up with several opponents when reelection time happens.

[Patrick]

Is Walters really that dumb? Whether we vote yes, or vote no, the budget problems will remain. This has nothing to do with the budget shortfall. Won't have an effect on the money going to the general budget.

If we lower our tax rate to 7.375% we'll for sure have the lowest tax rate of any city. Every other city has tax rates well above 8%. Why not just leave the tax rate at 8.375% and see some great things happen.

If anything, MAPS 3 will create jobs. Construction jobs for starters. Staff will have to run these senior centers. SMG will need more staff for a larger convention center. An expanded transit system will require more employees. Parks Dept will have to hire more people to maintain the downtown park. etc. etc.
And what about the impact these projects will have in increasing the tax revenue coming to the city's general budget? More tax dollars from more events at State fair park. More tax dollars from events at the new convention center.

[flintysooner]

The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.

The park - "amenity that most world class cities enjoy"
Transit - "healthier, more sustainable community"
Sidewalks - "healthier community"
Trails - "healthier community"
Oklahoma River - "healthier community"
Health and Wellness Centers - "healthier community"

Other than the convention center and the fairgrounds it appears that the purpose of this MAPS is a "healthier community."

That may be true although really there is nothing presented to support the proposition. So I am pretty skeptical. Even so I think there might be better and less expensive ways to achieve the healthier community objective.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Developers can afford to build amenities in developments if the cost of those amenities can be recovered in higher lease or rental rates or greater lot prices. Even then the buyers and the renters have to agree to pay dues for upkeep.

There are a lot of things that would be wonderful to build but most of us have to persuade investors and lenders that what we want to build makes some sort of economic sense. That's a lot harder.

Hopefully there will be information put forth to explain the rationale for these projects and explain how they work.

[Patrick]

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

If we can get a larger convention center, we can attract tier 2 conventions, which will bring a greater number of people into the city spending money. Just look at the amount of people San Antonio's convention center attracts.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

A lot of the maintence costs in the city come out of the regular bond issues we pass every few years. That's how we maintain most of our infrastructure. I know MAPS I had a use tax associated with it which was put into a special fund to maintain the original MAPS I projects. I believe $17 million is being put aside from MAPS 3 for that issue.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Transit will have to be subsidized just like it is everywhere else. I don't think you can ever depend on the transit system to be self-sustaining. I don't know too many systems that are. When was the last time Amtrak turned a profit?

Developers can afford to build amenities in developments if the cost of those amenities can be recovered in higher lease or rental rates or greater lot prices. Even then the buyers and the renters have to agree to pay dues for upkeep.

We can pay for it by increased tax revenues as well as increasing in the events booked at both State Fair Park and the new convention center.

[MikeOKC]

I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.

[Patrick]

I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.

Yeah, but I'm afraid we'll become like Tulsa and let bickering and division slow any progress in this city. It's not a good precedent to set.

[flintysooner]

If I were justifying these projects to investors and lenders; then, I would have to present supporting documentation. As much as they all like me they do not give a lot of weight to my wishes.

I can be persuaded but no one so far has done anything in that regard. Just saying something will happen just does not not make it so.

Sales tax revenues have not rebounded yet the last time I looked. It is not clear at all that we've seen the worst of the recession and that's assuming it doesn't become much worse or take a second dip.

If the same people that run the buses are going to run the street cars why should anyone believe they will run better? The fact that all transit has to be subsidized does not really make me want to support anymore of it.

I hope you're right and someone somewhere has something more to back these things up with than what has been shown so far.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

i am for it all but the downtown park. We are in OKC for crying out loud, there is land and parks everywhere. Alot of people will see this and vote no, just because of the park issue. Using the money to improve on the current parks would be better. IMO, the money could be put to use for something better.

[EBAH]

i am for it all but the downtown park. We are in OKC for crying out loud, there is land and parks everywhere. Alot of people will see this and vote no, just because of the park issue. Using the money to improve on the current parks would be better. IMO, the money could be put to use for something better.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. There was mention earlier of the idea that there are enough elements in the package to get folks to vote for something they didnt want to get something they do. I do kind of wish it maybe had half the money for half the park and spent the rest on better bus routes,

[soonerguru]

Is Walters really that dumb?

Yes, he's dumber than a box of hammers. But you know who's even dumber? The flipping voters who elected this neanderthal. If they actually vote in a reasonable candidate it will be a first for that district.

[adaniel]

Well councilman Walters is certainly free to express his opinion. With that in mind I remember Ed Kelley filming quite a withering editorial about him in the Oklahoman for not sharing the progressive spirit of the city coucil. He seems to enjoy being a fly in the ointment of the local "chamber of commerce republican" establishment. The only reason I know him is that he made quite a stink about the Devon TIF district and, more recently, the 1% public art funding.

[hoya]

The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.

The park - "amenity that most world class cities enjoy"
Transit - "healthier, more sustainable community"
Sidewalks - "healthier community"
Trails - "healthier community"
Oklahoma River - "healthier community"
Health and Wellness Centers - "healthier community"

Other than the convention center and the fairgrounds it appears that the purpose of this MAPS is a "healthier community."

That may be true although really there is nothing presented to support the proposition. So I am pretty skeptical. Even so I think there might be better and less expensive ways to achieve the healthier community objective.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Developers can afford to build amenities in developments if the cost of those amenities can be recovered in higher lease or rental rates or greater lot prices. Even then the buyers and the renters have to agree to pay dues for upkeep.

There are a lot of things that would be wonderful to build but most of us have to persuade investors and lenders that what we want to build makes some sort of economic sense. That's a lot harder.

Hopefully there will be information put forth to explain the rationale for these projects and explain how they work.

In basic terms, they will make the city not suck balls.

As it is, we're missing a lot of stuff that normal cities have. If we want to be competitive in the future, we need to improve the overall quality of life in the city. It's like buying a nice suit when you go to a job interview. Before MAPS, we were a guy wearing a short sleeved shirt with a clip-on tie, with tape holding his glasses together. We would interview with companies, and they'd tell us "thanks, but no thanks". Now we've got an off the rack suit from Sears and some nice contacts. We're actually getting our foot in the door.

The area that will be replaced by Core to Shore is ghetto. Drive through there and a hooker will literally leap into your car to stab you unless you give her crack. We need to clean it up, because we're moving the interstate, and from that point forward, everyone who comes downtown will have to drive through that area. We want to minimize the hooker stabbings. So we need a park.

[Doug Loudenback]

I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.

Mike and everyone, while I've been critical of the mayor on two matters, I've also said that in all likelihood that I'll vote yes.

Some may think that I'm being inconsistent.

Here is one of the comments in my blog article and my response to it:

Doug,

Why would you vote yes after everything you just stated? Is this not the docility city leadership expects? How is it being litigious for the rule of law to intervene where abuses are found? This is the typical docility Oklahoma government expects. My vote is a resounding no until there is more disclosure and less money for the convention center.

By "litigious," which to me means being at least somewhat zealously inclined towards using litigation, I may well have used the wrong word. I am personally disinclined to use litigation except as a last resort. I certainly don't think that it would be wrong for someone to force the issue through litigation, but that's just not me, particularly if I like and respect those against whom the lawsuit would be filed.

As I said in the article, I do like and respect our mayor and the few council members that I know and I give our city government high marks, generally. Hence, even writing an article which was critical, as it was, of the mayor and council (but particularly the mayor since my guess is that if he wanted the detail information to be immediately available it would be) was neither a pleasant nor an easy thing for me to do. Doing so is about as un-docile act as I'm prepared to make.

To your other question, why "Yes," given what I've said. That would take a longer time to state than suits a comment, but the nutshell is:

(1) I remember all too well how I felt about my city in the days that my favorite things downtown were taken away, destroyed, and not replaced by Urban Renewal in the 1960s-1970s, and how downtown became a lifeless place to be. I remember all too well the lack of pride which I and many had in our city.

(2) I remember almost being afraid to hope that downtown would change with the passage of MAPS 1, for fear of the big letdown if I did. Instead, over the many months, years, that it took to turn the tide, the fear gradually lessened and the city pride that I dearly wanted to have crept back into my psyche as the city came alive again. I never want that pride to go away again.

(3) Plainly, the time is right to take another major step downtown given the situation foisted on us by ODOT's decision to rebuild the crosstown away from downtown to its new location. The main pieces of the plan, at least those that I value most highly, are there even if others are there that are less important to me personally. Maybe I will not like some of the detail of those pieces once it is revealed, probably I won't since it's impossible to please everyone even if general agreement exists on the pieces included. I do agree with the mayor that an opportunity is present to take the next major step.

I don't know if this fully answers your question, but I sure as heck don't want my city to take on the mindset of Tulsa which lacks the public resolve to do the kinds of things we've done here via our MAPS projects. Even if I'm pissed about procedure. In the end, substance is a more important thing.

Just because I called, "Foul," on two important (to me) procedural points does not at all mean that I want Maps 3 to lose the game.

[betts]

In basic terms, they will make the city not suck balls.

As it is, we're missing a lot of stuff that normal cities have. If we want to be competitive in the future, we need to improve the overall quality of life in the city. It's like buying a nice suit when you go to a job interview. Before MAPS, we were a guy wearing a short sleeved shirt with a clip-on tie, with tape holding his glasses together. We would interview with companies, and they'd tell us "thanks, but no thanks". Now we've got an off the rack suit from Sears and some nice contacts. We're actually getting our foot in the door.

The area that will be replaced by Core to Shore is ghetto. Drive through there and a hooker will literally leap into your car to stab you unless you give her crack. We need to clean it up, because we're moving the interstate, and from that point forward, everyone who comes downtown will have to drive through that area. We want to minimize the hooker stabbings. So we need a park.

hoyasooner, I think you've hit the nail on the head here, although I have driven through fairly often and not encountered said hooker. I again cannot strongly enough encourage people to drive through the area (keep your car doors locked, apparently).

Please, please drive south from Reno on Walker and do not stop until you reach the river if you have not already done so. I think it's almost impossible to understand the scope of the Core to Shore plan until you've driven it and seen what is there now and precisely how much land there actually is. Imagine the area completely revitalized, with a connection from the CBD to the river. There are not many cities that have the kind of land available here that we will have, who have an opportunity to completely transform this large a segment of it's core.

Yes, we've already got parks in Oklahoma City, but do you think of any of them when you think of the city like you do the Boston Public Gardens, Central Park, Millenium Park when you think of the cities in which they are located? Those parks are a huge part of the face of these cities, and green open space in a downtown, again, is a wonderful public space for a community. This is one more amenity for the public to enjoy, just as they do the Ford Center, the Brick, the canal, the library, etc. It's one more reason for people in the city and visitors to spend quality time downtown.

MAPS cannot and should not be the only solution to our public transportation problem. I doubt any city in the US funds public transportation with a temporary one cent sales tax. The streetcar should be looked at like any of the other MAPS projects we've had so far: it's one more amenity that joins the many others to make Oklahoma City more accessible, easier to enjoy, inviting for residents and tourists. It should only be considered the first step in what needs to be an ongoing attempt to improve public transportation.

I think people might be happier if we had something really big in this proposal: a space needle type of city icon, a St. Louis arch. But, in terms of improving the lives of our citizens, making the city more enjoyable and accessible, these more homely (in the JRR Tolkien sense of the word) projects are designed to improve quality of life, especially leisure time quality of life for residents of the city. It might not be as sexy as a really big tower, but in the long run, we'll probably get a lot more out of these plans.

[Doug Loudenback]

As for an icon, Betts, the Skydance Bridge ain't too shabby (already funded and not part of Maps 3).

[betts]

That's true, Doug. This bridge will be an incredible icon. It's one of the things I look most forward to seeing built. What are we both doing up at 4:00 a.m.? I'm listening to train whistles and wishing the funding for the Quiet Zone could be part of MAPS 3. I love the sound of the trains, the whistles not so much.

[Doug Loudenback]

Dear lady, I haven't got an excuse as interesting ... just insomnia, I guess ... but at least I get to talk with one of my pals!

[kevinpate]

> We want to minimize the hooker stabbings. So we need a park.

I can see the t-shirts now

De-knife dem Hookers!
Vote Yes on Maps 3

MAPS - 3
Knife totin' Crack Ho's - 0
Vote Yes this December!