Widgets Magazine
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 168

Thread: MAPS 3 Press release

  1. Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    To give some perspective, it might be useful to step back in time. If any of you haven't got a copy of Steve Lackmeyer & Jack Moneys' OKC 2nd Time Around, you should get a copy. It may be the best book ever written about the history of the city.

    Among other things, the book sets the scene for the time of the original MAPS. I'll quote myself in the book review I did back in 2006 at Doug Dawgz Blog: OKC 2nd Time Around ...

    Chapter 9 – "Downtown is dead, and we helped kill it." Chapter 9's quoted text is form a statement made by Councilman I.G. Purser in 1988, alluding to the destroyed-but-not-replaced buildings largely along the south side of downtown, the loss of downtown's retail commerce, eateries, movies, and just about anything that is just plain fun for a person to do. Surveys showed that Oklahoma Citians had a low opinion of their city and its government and that many if not most would live elsewhere, given the opportunity.

    Chapter 9 begins the remarkable story of how Ron Norick, elected mayor in 1987, turned that seemingly unchallengeable tide. One is left with the impression that, if he did not do that single-handedly, without him it is most likely that the tide would not have been turned at all, at least not within our lifetimes.

    In political parlance, Oklahoma City is not what is called a "strong mayor" form of municipal government. See Mayor-council government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you want a mini-course about that. Even so, reviewing the period of time between 1987 through the end of Mayor Norick's second term in April 1998, the authors leave no doubt that Mayor Norick knew what had to be done and that he was willing to risk his political position to at least attempt to accomplish it. Urban Renewal had stalled out and, in many substantial ways, failed, and downtown Oklahoma City was continuing to wither on the vine as a place that people would want to be and/or go after 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and/or at any time during weekends.

    Sure, several new buildings resulted from Urban Renewal before the Oil Bust, the fall of Penn Square Bank and the ensuing series of bank failures which rippled not only through Oklahoma but the country – Kerr-McGee Tower, Oklahoma Tower, Murrah Federal Building, Fidelity Bank, Leadership Square, Corporate Towers, Myriad Convention Center, Myriad Gardens, and some others, but, notwithstanding, a desolate and vast hole existed between much of downtown south of Park Avenue to Interstate 40 and that area's environs, excepting a place here or there (e.g., Myriad Gardens). In some limited ways, Oklahoma Citians had been willing to tax themselves – e.g., for zoo improvements but not for library and other public needs.

    Chapter 9 might be seen as sort of Mayor Norick's "learning" phase – he spearheaded efforts to locate a major United Airlines Maintenance facility here – close but no cigars as Okc lost out to Indianapolis, among other failed initiatives.

    Why were we close but always losers, the mayor wondered. "When people hear of Oklahoma City, they just draw a blank," he concluded. "People just don't have a clue about who we are. I just think that we have got to do something."

    Chapter 10 -- Visions of a New Frontier. Chapter 10 is sort of a "catalyst" chapter. The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce and the mayor had similar if not identical notions of what was needed to turn the tide. Not without dissension, the mayor knew his head and forged ahead, putting together a task force of both those who he thought might be adversaries and not, their purpose being to come up with a grand plan. A principle of Norick's vision was "mass" -- for most of the projects to be centered downtown so that one project could feed off of one another ... some elements of which were contrary to the wishes of formidable Oklahoma Citians and/or interests, e.g., E.L. Gaylord wanted a new arena at the Fairgrounds, some wanted a totally new cultural center and not just an updated Civic Center Music Hall, etc., etc., etc. However, Mayor Norick, firmly involved in the process, held his ground. Of course, other projects were also involved ... upgrading the Convention Center, a new library, river improvement and development through south of downtown – and – canals and stuff in that ignored part of town that Neal Horton's dreams were hooked upon, Bricktown.

    Mayor Norick wanted to proceed forthwith to put the grand design to a vote of the people, asking them to impose a penny sales tax upon themselves for five years to pay for the privilege!

    Prior polling suggested passage to be unlikely. "The numbers, Deck and other task members decided, were bad, and almost everyone at the table the election might need to be postponed, at least until after the next mayoral election in March 1994. Instead of going along, Mayor Norick became increasingly adamant that the election needed to be held soon. "You know what?" Norick told the group. "I don't want to be mayor if we don't at least try to do this. If we take a shot at this and it doesn't pass and that in results in me not being re-elected, then so be it."

    Chapter 11 -- Swing the Vote. This chapter involves the efforts of getting people on board so that the vote might succeed, and how it happened. It was not always easy.

    Newspaper publisher Edward L. Gaylord was among the skeptics. "You must be crazy," Gaylord responded after hearing the plan. "You'll never get it passed. And besides, that canal is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of."

    But, others like Joel Levine, conductor of the symphony, made speeches supporting a new ball park for the city, and sports enthusiasts talked about the importance of bringing musicals and opera to the town.

    As he campaigned, Norick remained focused upon the plan as a whole and what he felt it would do for the city. "Are you willing to defeat your symphony because you don't like baseball?" Norick asked arts patrons. He also rallied the senior vote, telling older city residents the plan was about the future. "You may not like it. You may not even be around for it. But, aren't your grandkids?"

    Rick Horrow, paid Florida based consultant but catching the fever, called the plan, "the boldest he had ever seen by a city to improve itself by dramatically raising the quality of life of its residents." Attendants at a December 1993 Myriad Convention Center rally were counseled by Coach Barry Switzer: "'The ball is on the one-yard line,'" Switzer screamed, closing out his talk in a manner he might have used with his players a time or two. "Let's put it in the end zone ... and then we'll be number one in the twenty-first century! You have got chance to make a difference, damn it! Do something about it!'"

    Dirty tricks, all! But with these tactics and against all odds, the initial MAPS vote passed.
    Edward Gaylord, as you can see, didn't think much of the Bricktown Canal. But, he was VERY big on the fairgrounds (I think, but haven't checked to be sure, that he was chairman of the board of the fairgrounds at the time) and he wanted the proposed new ballpark built there, but Norick held his ground on the point. But the inclusion of major fairgrounds improvements in MAPS may well have led to the December 12, 1993, editorial shown below ... still skeptical of the Bricktown canal but essentially saying that it didn't matter



    You can see from the above editorial that Mayor Norick managed to get a unanimous city council vote for MAPS. Mayor Cornett came close but, as already mentioned, Brian Walters from Ward 5 (located largely south of I-240 into the Moore area) is the lone holdout and opponent.

    Results reported in the Wednesday Oklahoman showed the MAPS votes: Yes at 32,367, No at 27,762, with the measure passing by 54% to 46%.

  2. Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by flintysooner View Post
    The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.

    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?

    Hopefully there will be information put forth to explain the rationale for these projects and explain how they work.
    Seriously, flintysooner? That is honestly why you are skeptical? That kind of skepticism is exactly what many in OKC had prior to the first MAPS. Now they bury their heads when reminded the amount of synergy and economic benefits that were created for the city from the FIRST MAPS project. And now we have to ride the same donkey again!?!?

    Anything built by the city has to maintained by the city. That's a no-brainer. The canal maintenance is paid for by the city. SMG is paid by the city to manage the Cox Convention Center and the Ford Center. The new library's maintenance has to be paid for by the city.

    That's what you do when you live in a city. You pay for the services. You want to live in a great city, you pay for it. I don't know how much convincing people need.

    As far as the planned park downtown is concerned, this is not your average everyday Will Rogers Park. And to whomever suggested that the city should take the money to improve other parks... well... those other parks already get their improvements from the bond issues we vote for.

    Good gosh, people. This is stuff isn't rocket science. Why are all of you acting like you don't know how the city will 'do things' when we've been down this road before... twice!

    Walters maybe free to express his opinion, but he is a city leader. It is his responsibility to grow the city, not kick the can around because he 'personally doesn't agree'. That is America's problem today. Everyone wants to express their opinion without taking responsibility for what they say. If he wants to express his personal opinion, maybe he should leave city hall and become a columnist. He argues that it isn't appropriate to fund a huge project given the city's current budget woes, when MAPS isn't even a part of the city's operating budget. What a dunse.
    Continue the Renaissance!!!

  3. #103

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by adaniel View Post
    Well if you need confirmation that passage of MAPS III is not a sure thing...

    Oklahoma City leader opposes Maps 3 - KFOR

    Ugghhh... I hate this man.

  4. #104

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by adaniel View Post
    Well if you need confirmation that passage of MAPS III is not a sure thing...

    Oklahoma City leader opposes Maps 3 - KFOR
    Notice how he didn't say anything about his constituents he represents or what they want. What a tool. Where is the REAL media to point this out?

    Quote Originally Posted by khook View Post
    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.
    Yep. In fact, I'd be shocked if he doesn't have an opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
    Is Walters really that dumb?

    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.
    You'd think it'd be that clear to most.

    Quote Originally Posted by flintysooner View Post
    The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.

    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 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?
    WOW. Again folks, MAPS 3 ISN'T EVEN AN OFFICIAL BALLOT ITEM YET. GEEZ, it was just unveiled to the council, as to the public last week! The council doesn't even vote to allow to set it for a public vote until the end of the month. You're jumping to conclusions before it's even official. The City can't even have the Chamber promote it until it becomes official. Give them time to do their job. That's the problem with our society these days, we all want instant everything, microwave my MAPS 3 please, I want every answer now! We demand answers to everything like we're owed everything. Let them have time to present the case that is MAPS 3 before jumping to conclusions and demanding answers.

    As for the streetcar funding, I believe the figure for annual maintenance costs was around $2 million or so a year. This is pocket change for a city our size. Furthermore, we probably spend more than that on the buses currently. The bus system will get an overhaul if MAPS 3 is passed anyways, making the overall system more efficient. The council is rapidly having lack of confidence in Metro Transit/COPTA, and is ever working towards a regional transit government (which is what we need and will probably happen if this passes). You all are also forgetting that if this passes, we will get state funding and even more federal funding. Federal funding usually pays the bulk of mass transit systems anyways. Again, these details will be laid out at MTP meetings, MAPS 3, etc. As someone said above, you all act as if you don't know how this works or act like the City doesn't know what they're doing, we've had 3 MAPS now, we should be used to it and confident in the system that it delivers success on time and on budget.


    Quote Originally Posted by MikeOKC View Post
    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.
    See answer above, MAPS 3 isn't official yet, give it time and allow them to do their job. What are you and Walters wanting out of our city, complacency? No forward progress?

    Quote Originally Posted by flintysooner View Post
    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.

    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.
    Again, you haven't allowed this to become an official campaign yet, give them time to approve it so they can begin promoting and educating the public. See answer above about transit funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by okcpulse View Post
    Seriously, flintysooner? That is honestly why you are skeptical? That kind of skepticism is exactly what many in OKC had prior to the first MAPS. Now they bury their heads when reminded the amount of synergy and economic benefits that were created for the city from the FIRST MAPS project. And now we have to ride the same donkey again!?!?

    That's what you do when you live in a city. You pay for the services. You want to live in a great city, you pay for it. I don't know how much convincing people need.

    Good gosh, people. This is stuff isn't rocket science. Why are all of you acting like you don't know how the city will 'do things' when we've been down this road before... twice!
    Finally someone who gets it, how refereshing! I'm all for people asking questions and holding City accountable, etc. But geez, this instant gratification, demanding answer me answer me, is ridiculous.

  5. #105

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    I agree that the S Robinson area of the city is pretty disgusting. But the idea of bulldozing is pretty stomach churning to me. It should be illegal to tear down anything with structural integrity (obviously not the prefab metal buildings) and architectural significance over there. There are some great buildings, and some awesome architectural details on the Robinson underpass. I've always thought that area could be kind of cool. I mean, obviously not in it's current use with all of the junk yards and aforementioned hookers. But it seems like a good spot for infill around existing structures. There are a few little clusters of store fronts especially from about S 10th to 12th or so that could be cool spots for shops and bars (something more like the chaos and sin Doug mentioned in his OKC Central piece). I think we all need to remember that it was grand urban planning and destruction of seemingly useless old buildings that got us in to this mess in the beginning. Are there any kind of plans or allowances to protect structures in that area under the C2S and Park plans?

  6. #106

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    If economic considerations are so unimportant then let's just do 10 years for more than a billion or 20 years for 2 billion.

    I do understand that every detail cannot be discussed openly because of competitive considerations but surely it is possible to present something more than it makes us healthier.

    But I've said my piece and understand my place and will fall back into lurkdom.

  7. #107

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Too many posts to catch up on so here is my take.

    A new, approximately 70-acre central park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River - Yes

    A new rail-based streetcar system, plus potential funding for other rail transit initiatives, such as commuter lines and a transit hub - Yes

    A new downtown convention center - Yes

    Sidewalks to be placed on major streets and near facilities used by the public throughout the City - No. Sidewalks, while important, are not MAPS worthy. Too small and benefits too localized.

    57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City - No, unless these are trails around the river. Too small and benefits too localized. I'll bet you a million dollars less than 2 people in OKC can tell me how many miles of current trails OKC has without having to look it up first. This idea is not on the grand scale MAPS requires.

    Improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world - Yes

    State-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers throughout the City designed for senior citizens - No. Honestly, how did this even get on the list? Senior citizens get a refund on the MAPS tax, no way they should get their own facility designed just for them. They want to swim, they should jump off a kayak on the new whitewater course or join the YMCA.

    Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds - Yes

  8. #108

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    OK, you think part is great, part is horrible, but it is up or down on the package. So, since you, if here, would have only a single up or down vote, which way would you pull your lever when you got all cozy behind your curtain?

  9. #109

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
    57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City - No, unless these are trails around the river. Too small and benefits too localized. I'll bet you a million dollars less than 2 people in OKC can tell me how many miles of current trails OKC has without having to look it up first. This idea is not on the grand scale MAPS requires.
    Are these bike trails in line with the original bike trail plan. From what I understood about the plan was that it would be a sort of bicycle highway so that commuting somewhat long distances on a bike would be possible. If that were the case, I would love that! I used to ride from Midwest City to brunch/bars in Midtown, Paseo, Bricktown, etc all the time when I still lived in MWC. We always took 4th but it is a pretty rough surface to deal with. It has a lot of train crossings and spotty shoulders. I've always thought a kind of bicycle freeway would be an awesome idea for the city. If there was a safe route to Edmond I would seriously ride to my Office near 2nd street on nice days. However, if we are talking about little "road to nowhere" park trails throughout the city, I could not care less. But, anything that will make bicycles in this city more of a viable transit method has my support. I mean, come on, this place is so flat it should be perfect for riding.

  10. #110

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinpate View Post
    OK, you think part is great, part is horrible, but it is up or down on the package. So, since you, if here, would have only a single up or down vote, which way would you pull your lever when you got all cozy behind your curtain?
    Doesn't matter, he doesn't get to vote in Georgia and Florida.

  11. #111

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    > Doesn't matter, he doesn't get to vote


    Don't be so silly, smug, whatevah. Of course it matters.

    Not Kerry personally, but Kerry as someone's thoughts, someone who does know voters and can reach out to them, favorably or otherwise. Even those of us who won't actually vote (which includes me as a Normanite) can have some sway on the outcome.

    Knowing what folks who like/love parts 1,4,6 and can stand 2,3,5 but hate 7,8 might do if given the chance is useful intel, irrespective of whether one is a voter, observer or activist.
    Last edited by kevinpate; 09-22-2009 at 10:49 AM. Reason: wrong line quoted

  12. #112

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Fair enough. I just find it funny that several of the strongest feelings against certain MAPS 3 components, are from out of staters with no vote, or on Newsok, from people who live in Edmond or Moore.

  13. #113

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by metro View Post
    Fair enough. I just find it funny that several of the strongest feelings against certain MAPS 3 components, are from out of staters with no vote, or on Newsok, from people who live in Edmond or Moore.
    Yes you are correct, I don't have a vote. I don't even have influence over anyone that does. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. Even if I disagree with 3 of the items I would still vote Yes because the three items I disagree with are small $ wise. However, I think it is a bad idea to use MAPS money to pay for things that should be covered under normal city obligations and are not cost prohibitive. Bike lanes and trails fall into that category.

    MAPS should be reserve to raise big bucks to fund big ideas. 57 miles of bike trails is not a big idea, nor does it require big bucks. It seems to me that several of these little projects are just payoffs to small vocal special interest groups that cold derail the big effort. I don't like it being done that way and I especially don't like Senior Swim Centers. MAPS is for everyone, not this group or that group. If you want to have a MAPS for Seniors (like MAPS 4 Kids) then vote on that separately.

  14. Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
    Yes you are correct, I don't have a vote. I don't even have influence over anyone that does. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. Even if I disagree with 3 of the items I would still vote Yes because the three items I disagree with are small $ wise. However, I think it is a bad idea to use MAPS money to pay for things that should be covered under normal city obligations and are not cost prohibitive. Bike lanes and trails fall into that category.

    MAPS should be reserve to raise big bucks to fund big ideas. 57 miles of bike trails is not a big idea, nor does it require big bucks. It seems to me that several of these little projects are just payoffs to small vocal special interest groups that cold derail the big effort. I don't like it being done that way and I especially don't like Senior Swim Centers. MAPS is for everyone, not this group or that group. If you want to have a MAPS for Seniors (like MAPS 4 Kids) then vote on that separately.
    I agree with much of what you say on the "no" issues. However, one advantage of doing it through a MAPS type program is that the long term cost of doing it on a pay-as-you-go basis is far less than if you were to fund the "no" items through bond issues (because of the interest that must be paid and the expenses related to the bond issue itself). Large capital expenditure projects generally have to be done one way or the other. City budgets don't normally just generate revenue sufficient to build these types of things. The only other alternative is to seek out private or corporate funding.

  15. #115

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    I think the whole idea behind MAPS is to try to offer something that everyone can benefit from. And, if senior centers are going to be offered, I doubt seniors will be getting a tax refund this go-around.

    And the bike trails are a big deal......it will complete the trails master plan the city developed years ago which will connect all of the trail systems across the city. You'll be able to ride a bike all around the city on these trails. Will connect the Oklahoma River trails to the Overholser trails to the Hefner trails, etc. etc.

    Some have raised questions about the state fair park improvements. I just don't think the money was there from the hotel motel tax to fund the new expo center that will replace most of the smaller buildings at state fair park. There's still work to be done on the horse facilities, and much of the hotel-motel tax is being funneled that direction. We would've had to wait 10-20 years to collect enough of the hotel-motel taxes to finally build this expo center, as current funds are going to revamp the horse facilities and the state fair arena. We really could use this new expo center sooner rather than later. Some of those older smaller buildings, like the arts and crafts and modern living buildings are really deteriorating. They're well over 50 years old. I believe the only buildings being kept are the Cox Pavilion (formerly International Building) and the Centennial Building (formerly the Kitchens of America building). I believe the rest, mostly steel buildings, will be demolished, as they've run their course.

  16. #116

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by EBAH View Post
    Are these bike trails in line with the original bike trail plan. From what I understood about the plan was that it would be a sort of bicycle highway so that commuting somewhat long distances on a bike would be possible. If that were the case, I would love that! I used to ride from Midwest City to brunch/bars in Midtown, Paseo, Bricktown, etc all the time when I still lived in MWC. We always took 4th but it is a pretty rough surface to deal with. It has a lot of train crossings and spotty shoulders. I've always thought a kind of bicycle freeway would be an awesome idea for the city. If there was a safe route to Edmond I would seriously ride to my Office near 2nd street on nice days. However, if we are talking about little "road to nowhere" park trails throughout the city, I could not care less. But, anything that will make bicycles in this city more of a viable transit method has my support. I mean, come on, this place is so flat it should be perfect for riding.
    Agree entirely!

    The end result of the trails master plan is a worthy component. A 'bicycle freeway' would be the envy of any large city.

  17. #117

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    The completed master trails system will be a show piece to the nation.

  18. #118

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by metro View Post
    Fair enough. I just find it funny that several of the strongest feelings against certain MAPS 3 components, are from out of staters with no vote, or on Newsok, from people who live in Edmond or Moore.
    My handle on there says I'm from Edmond, but I'm actually in OKC city limits. So that's not always accurate. I live out by Mercy. And I'm proof that even a surburbanite can be for improvements downtown. I may live in the suburbs but I enjoy going downtown, to the Civic Center for broadway musicals, to Bricktown for dinner and a ballgame, to the Ford Center for a basketball game, and even to the downtown library to relax and read a book. You can't tell me suburbanites won't be benefitting from MAPS 3.

  19. #119

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by soonerguru View Post
    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.
    As someone who knows and voted for Councilman Walters, I find your statement asinine and patently offensive. Do I always agree with him? No, but just because he doesn't parrot your set of projects or attitudes doesn't make him a "neanderthal."

  20. #120

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by okcpulse View Post
    Walters maybe free to express his opinion, but he is a city leader. It is his responsibility to grow the city, not kick the can around because he 'personally doesn't agree'. That is America's problem today. Everyone wants to express their opinion without taking responsibility for what they say. If he wants to express his personal opinion, maybe he should leave city hall and become a columnist. He argues that it isn't appropriate to fund a huge project given the city's current budget woes, when MAPS isn't even a part of the city's operating budget. What a dunse.
    No, okc, the responsibility of any councilman is first to represent his constituents, not toe the line. How many times in this forum have we wished for a politician (at various levels) who would be willing to stand against what might be perceived as the established power structure and yell "Wait a second" when everyone else is screaming "Plow ahead?"

    Do I agree with Walters? Not necessarily. I don't think he actually believes MAPS money is intermingled with the city's operating budget, and honestly I don't believe you think he does, either. Without resorting to name-calling, wouldn't it be possible he's just asking for a bit of perspective?

    It isn't "happy" news, but it is true that current sales tax revenues are down - and down substantially (something on the order of 11-12% if I remember correctly). The idea that we're really going to draw $100 million annually from a tax that, even in "good" times hasn't earned that much revenue is worth at least a dose of skepticism. If revenues don't end up where they're supposed to be, something in that slate of projects isn't going to get done. If fiscal restraint is ultimately needed, who decides which projects don't get done, or get scaled back?

    I'm with Doug here in lamenting the lack of details. I remember when the first MAPS rolled through, and it seemed (at least in hindsight it does) that the city went out of its way to detail what was going to happen, how it was going to be managed, but I personally am not yet convinced we've seen that in *this* iteration. I'm also with Doug in that I will probably support the proposal, but I think we need to migrate to a more constructive form of disagreement than calling one councilman (or implying a larger part of the city) is a "dunse" merely because they haven't just "gone along to get along."

  21. #121

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    A poster stated earlier that this would be an up or down vote. I have not seen anything of an official nature that it would be up or down, but I could have missed it. Was not the first Maps voted on a project by project basis? Since I have noticed in the past that a few posters like to make up facts as they go can any one direct me to something official in regards to this. I believe the voters should have a choice of what projects they wish to fund. To make it up or down would be an attempt to force too much down the throats of the citizens and there will be several. if not many, that would campaign against it in my opinion and I would probably be one of them.

  22. #122

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by SoonerDave View Post
    No, okc, the responsibility of any councilman is first to represent his constituents, not toe the line.
    His constituents are Westmoore. Obviously, residents of the ward with possibly the highest per capita income in the city wouldn't be caught dead on public transit.

  23. #123

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    It's obviously Councilman Walters' right to hold his own opinion. His opinion is clearly going to get more press than ours. However, if he's going to speak for his constituents, then I would think he needs to be more specific than simply citing the economy. Perhaps he has expanded on this elsewhere. If I were a councilperson, before I spoke publicly, I'd have data regarding my constituents' opinions, I'd address the negative effects of a tax versus the potential positive ones associated with job creation, and perhaps I would discuss MAPS item by item. If he votes no, and he wishes to be reelected, then he needs to make sure he is truly representing the wishes of his constituents.

  24. #124

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by Popsy View Post
    A poster stated earlier that this would be an up or down vote. I have not seen anything of an official nature that it would be up or down, but I could have missed it. Was not the first Maps voted on a project by project basis? Since I have noticed in the past that a few posters like to make up facts as they go can any one direct me to something official in regards to this. I believe the voters should have a choice of what projects they wish to fund. To make it up or down would be an attempt to force too much down the throats of the citizens and there will be several. if not many, that would campaign against it in my opinion and I would probably be one of them.
    I think the original MAPS was YES or NO for the sales tax. But I remember Steve Lackmeyer writing about the possibility that MAPS 3 might be broken out because of subsequent court rulings. But I've not read anything that makes me believe it will be broken out or how.

  25. #125

    Default Re: MAPS 3 Press release

    Quote Originally Posted by Popsy View Post
    A poster stated earlier that this would be an up or down vote. I have not seen anything of an official nature that it would be up or down, but I could have missed it. Was not the first Maps voted on a project by project basis? Since I have noticed in the past that a few posters like to make up facts as they go can any one direct me to something official in regards to this. I believe the voters should have a choice of what projects they wish to fund. To make it up or down would be an attempt to force too much down the throats of the citizens and there will be several. if not many, that would campaign against it in my opinion and I would probably be one of them.
    MAPS and MAPS for Kids were both an all or nothing vote, as the MAPS 3 vote will be. There have been meetings on Core to Shore open to the public over the past several years, and there was a poll conducted by the city regarding citizens wishes for MAPS. So, the city has made some attempt to determine what people would like to see in MAPS, and from there has made a determination of what will be included in the proposal. As with the previous MAPs votes, one will have to decide if the pluses outweight the minuses or vice versa and vote accordingly. If MAPs 3 doesn't pass, nothing will be funded and if it does, everything will be. I don't think there will be a "Whoops, let's try this again" vote in six months or a year or two, so we all have to make our best decision about what will be best for the city and vote.

    I think the most important thing is not to vote based on whether we like the city's methods or attitude, but rather, vote with cool heads based on our opinion about the proposals.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. MAPS 3 proposal almost ready...
    By warreng88 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 220
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 09:14 AM
  2. Redrawing MAPS for Kids
    By Patrick in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 01:19 PM
  3. MAPS Impact continues
    By Patrick in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2005, 01:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO