When can we get a precinct breakdown of MAPS 3 vote?

[Larry OKC]

Well I would wholeheartedly second what stlokc said actually. This is more about the north/south dichotomy.

I agree and was wondering since the vote percentages were nearly the same for MAPS 3 as MAPS if it was the case, and by looking at the MAPS, it appears so. One lesson learned from MAPS was it was seen by southsiders as primarily benefiting the north side. They solved that with MAPS for Kids so that every school was at least renovated and the new schools that were built were were built N/S. Even if you didn't have kids in school, you knew someone who did and virtually everyone would be impacted by the projects. MAPS 3 was a hybrid of sorts (mostly downtown but with "city-wide" projects thrown in too). But it looks like we are back to the MAPS era and hopefully MAPS 4 will be more like MAPS 2.

[stlokc]

Spartan, I want to tread very lightly in attempting to tackle your question, because the last thing I want to do is to disrespect any group's experiences or attitudes. They all have value.

One part of upward social mobility is access to education. The people I knew growing up all went to four-year colleges, 100% of them, many outside of Oklahoma. Nearly all of their parents did as well. They formed "worldviews" on the basis of the experiences they learned through meeting others with varying backgrounds. That experience generally "moderates" one's thinking on issues of culture. It changes their priorities on what is more important and what is less important. Those with less access to these divergent opinions might tend to associate, to a greater degree, with those who generally already share their own opinions.

Bringing that back to MAPS, a greater proportion (by no means all, and we're talking about maybe just 5% more) of northsiders might tend to think about what is best for the whole rather than what is best for their own self-interest. We have seen this on these threads with people who didn't vote for MAPS because they didn't see anything in it that will directly benefit them. They didn't want the tax because they were "trying to send a message" or they were concerned that their own neighborhood wouldn't benefit. (That is defensible, by the way, but it is just a product of a different way of looking at things). They are more likely to see it as a product of a zero-sum game, something is improving the northside, so it must not have value for the southside. (Even though the new Central Park is south of I-40, and the neighborhoods it will benefit are those it surrounds)

[krisb]

That's an impressive percentage. If I'm getting your precinct right you had a total of 42 voters, though. My precinct had 958 voters, and 81.63% were yes votes. It appears that Heritage Hills was the epicenter of the yes movement.

By the way, have you ever seen the character "Topper," in the Dilbert comic strip?

Reminds me of Penelope from SNL.

[Spartan]

Spartan, I want to tread very lightly in attempting to tackle your question, because the last thing I want to do is to disrespect any group's experiences or attitudes. They all have value.

One part of upward social mobility is access to education. The people I knew growing up all went to four-year colleges, 100% of them, many outside of Oklahoma. Nearly all of their parents did as well. They formed "worldviews" on the basis of the experiences they learned through meeting others with varying backgrounds. That experience generally "moderates" one's thinking on issues of culture. It changes their priorities on what is more important and what is less important. Those with less access to these divergent opinions might tend to associate, to a greater degree, with those who generally already share their own opinions.

Bringing that back to MAPS, a greater proportion (by no means all, and we're talking about maybe just 5% more) of northsiders might tend to think about what is best for the whole rather than what is best for their own self-interest. We have seen this on these threads with people who didn't vote for MAPS because they didn't see anything in it that will directly benefit them. They didn't want the tax because they were "trying to send a message" or they were concerned that their own neighborhood wouldn't benefit. (That is defensible, by the way, but it is just a product of a different way of looking at things). They are more likely to see it as a product of a zero-sum game, something is improving the northside, so it must not have value for the southside. (Even though the new Central Park is south of I-40, and the neighborhoods it will benefit are those it surrounds)

Well it's obvious that northsiders have more access to opportunities to expand their horizons, that was just like restating the fact. I was pondering the why part.. does the southside really lack cultural assets? We know the northside has cultural assets, everything from a vibrant club scene to independent bookstores like Full Circle to home grown coffee shops to musems and art galleries, and everything that makes a complete community. The southside..really has nothing? How do we solve that? Should we, or do people really prefer to keep living in the dark ages?

[flintysooner]

Well it's obvious that northsiders have more access to opportunities to expand their horizons, that was just like restating the fact. I was pondering the why part.. does the southside really lack cultural assets? We know the northside has cultural assets, everything from a vibrant club scene to independent bookstores like Full Circle to home grown coffee shops to musems and art galleries, and everything that makes a complete community. The southside..really has nothing? How do we solve that? Should we, or do people really prefer to keep living in the dark ages?

One Starbucks in south OKC. Are there any bookstores other than Mardels? One Target. Are there any museums or galleries?

Having lived both north and south it does seem to me that there is more of a "community" feel south than north but just anecdotal.

[stlokc]

Spartan, I don't think anybody can "solve" it. I'm not sure it's begging to be "solved." Book stores and art galleries and coffee shops will appear in neighborhoods that can support them. If you are speaking of national chains, they look at demographics of income, education, etc. within a certain radius. If they don't feel they can be supported, they won't come. As far as local places, that is up to the residents of the community and to people with a vision to bring something to their community. At some point, the hand wringing has to lead to action by those within a community. I don't recall city subsidies for individual businesses along N. Western or Paseo or in Nichols Hills. We smug northsiders can't want it for them more than they want it for themselves.

As far as cultural assets, I think the city bringing the new central park and the riverside amenities to the location where they are is a step in the right direction, if the goal is to spread the higher-level assets to underserved communities. Those facilities are going to be a hell of a lot closer to SW 59 and Penn than they will be to NW 122 and McCarthur.

[andy157]

Don't feel to sorry for us poor Southsiders we'll make it some how. In fact, and because MAPS 3 passed, things are looking up. It's true, the north side has alot to offer its residents when it comes to cultural assets and amenities. So many of those finer things in life can not be found down South, but at least we'll have a new central park, core-to-shore, and a really neat ferris wheel on the Southside to brag about.

[Spartan]

I think your post kind of begs the question: How does the other half live? LOL

[flintysooner]

Spartan, I don't think anybody can "solve" it. I'm not sure it's begging to be "solved." Book stores and art galleries and coffee shops will appear in neighborhoods that can support them. If you are speaking of national chains, they look at demographics of income, education, etc. within a certain radius. If they don't feel they can be supported, they won't come. As far as local places, that is up to the residents of the community and to people with a vision to bring something to their community. At some point, the hand wringing has to lead to action by those within a community. I don't recall city subsidies for individual businesses along N. Western or Paseo or in Nichols Hills. We smug northsiders can't want it for them more than they want it for themselves.

As far as cultural assets, I think the city bringing the new central park and the riverside amenities to the location where they are is a step in the right direction, if the goal is to spread the higher-level assets to underserved communities. Those facilities are going to be a hell of a lot closer to SW 59 and Penn than they will be to NW 122 and McCarthur.

I used to think this way before I became directly involved in some projects.

The development process is pretty bureaucratic and discouragingly devoid of imagination for the most part.

Developers have a good many parties to satisfy including politicians of all kinds, political entities, lenders, tenants or owners, and potential customers.

Lenders want to see deals that are very low risk and that was in the good old days when lenders were lending. Low risk means "credit worthy" tenants or buyers and "credit worthy" is a pretty small universe right now pretty much consisting of anyone who does not need to borrow.

Larger tenants always take the safe option. The ultimate decision makers usually have never even been to the places they're considering and rely on reports and graphs and numbers and legal contracts.

Smaller tenants for the most part want to be near larger tenants.

There are always those who don't want whatever it is wherever it is and for never.

Really it surprises me that things aren't worse than they are.

[jbrown84]

JBrown!! Is that your way of saying you didn't vote?!?!

I know where I vote, but I don't know the precinct number. There are 2 at that polling place, so that makes it even harder to remember.

[jbrown84]

I would change it slightly:

Oklahoma CITY is mostly controlled by the "country club Republicans" who are somewhat progressive and very pro-business, whereas there's a very vocal minority group that's your more God-fearing, flag-waving, gun-toting Republican whose more interested in broader national issues and moral issues.

[dismayed]

I kind of find this thread culturally insensitive and wish some would check their arrogance at the door before posting on topics such as these. I think rather than assuming that the south side is a barren wasteland perhaps it would be best to put yourself in their shoes and think about MAPS from their perspective. When I do that, I know what I see is a lot of stuff that is perceived to be "north side" in its orientation. Downtown may be the center of OKC, but I think after talking to many southsiders that many of them consider donwtown part of the north side. So from their perspective, it really comes down to "what's in it for me." Which I think is, politically, a fair question.

I think that the current MAPS attempted to do this to some degree, with the elderly folks, by promising aquatic centers around the city. I think that this MAPS proposal could have garnered much, much wider support if it had realized that this city has unique cultural assets all around that are in need of some funding.

At one time the Capital Hill area was considered the downtown of the southside. It had window-shopping, department stores, and everything else that a true downtown is supposed to have. Over time it faded away like so much else in the metro. Why not throw the southsiders a bone and promise funds to improve the area? Or how about Stockyards City? It's one of the most recognizable and "Oklahoman grown" type places we have in the metro and really we do very little from a public standpoint to help it along. Or how about the area around the Farmer's Market? Or how about some park-related initiatives that would improve south side parks such as Earlywine?

Really guys it frightens me that the obvious is so easily overlooked here. Drop the north vs. south BS and throw them a bone if you want them to vote on something. Geez.

[Spartan]

I am sorry you find election analysis to be culturally insensitive.

[stlokc]

Dismayed, I respect your opinion and am sorry if I wrote anything in my post to make you feel that I was being arrogant. I think I tried hard in my post to be sensitive to the feelings of southsiders. But I really do think that neighborhoods, be they north, south, east or west, need to realize that the city at large can only do so much and the good things have to happen organically. If southsiders want galleries, bars, bookstores etc they need to make it happen. And if that's not a priority, that's OK too. But I still maintain that the improvement of the south end of downtown will help Capitol Hill more than it helps anything far north. I respect your right to think differently.

[Spartan]

Here's the buy-in for the southsiders: When we are trying to "sell" OKC to young people to come settle down here, what we are selling isn't really "OKC" but specifically North OKC. When we're talking about our community assets and stuff like that, ALL of those are up north.

Do people on the south side ever get tired of driving north? I know that quite a few do.

[stlokc]

Spartan, OK, I hear you. But define please what you mean by "community assets." what is a community asset? How is the "southsiders" different than the "westside" for example (I'm talking about I-40 to nw highway, west of Portland.) That area is at least as large as "southside" but doesn't seem to feel the same separation anxiety. What "community assets" reside over there? Is the "southside" more an artificial construct simply because of the river? If by "community asset" you mean historic, walkable neighborhoods like Paseo, North Western, etc. than I would argue the fabric of Capitol Hill should be able to create a nascent renaissance like the inner northside if those neighborhoods invested in themselves to the degree that the inner northside has. I'm not sure the powers that be actively "sell the north over the south, the north neighborhoods just happen to be those that have had entrepreneurs willing to invest. And as far as "driving up north" I still say the southsiders have a shorter drive to downtown than my parents do in Quail Creek. It's just an artificial perception that driving across a river is different than driving 20 minutes from NW122.

[Spartan]

Look, I'm not a north side snob. I graduated from Westmoore High School, went to OU before transferring..never once lived on the north side. Now that I am home for the Holidays I'm once again staying in beautiful South OKC.. I know the southside psyche so well to the point I may seem a little over critical at times. And I get the argument that maybe the southside just doesn't want the things that north OKC has.

As for a "west side" there really isn't a west and an east to OKC.. it's mainly a north/south dichotomy. An artificial construct? You betcha. It's absolutely an artificial construct, but it's also a very real factor. It's not so much created by the Oklahoma River as it is the vast expanses of underutilized real estate (some greenfield, some brownfield) on both sides of it.

Community assets I'm talking about are anything that's adds to culture and quality of life, really. Coffee shops, bookstores, shopping malls, museums, local restaurants, universities, art galleries, night clubs.. the north side is chock full of all of those things. The south side is the complete opposite. The only coffee option is 1 Starbucks. There are no bookstores unless you count Walden Books at Xroads. No museums. The only local restaurants are greasy Mexican joints. No art galleries. No shopping malls, and no, Xroads is no longer a shopping mall. The only higher education is OCCC, while north side as OCU, UCO, OC, etc. The north side actually has a lot of mainstream night life, too.

I'm not even talking about quality historic areas because most people don't even care about that. Besides, we know that there was a day and age that the south side DID once have coffee shops, bookstores, and local restaurants of every flavor..they filled urban areas like Capitol Hill, 29th Street, Walker Ave, Western Ave..each of these used to be retail strips. While Stockyards City has made good progress lately, Capitol Hill hasn't quite lived up to its enormous potential. The Grill on the Hill is a good beginning though, and it has been pretty busy since it opened a few months ago. People on the south side have been yearning for a decent locally-owned restaurant, and it can support more. Pick up a copy of the Gazette and you'll notice the Grill on the Hill is the first southside restaurant that's not a Mexican joint they've featured in probably..10 years.

And I absolutely agree with you that C2S benefits the south side a lot more than it does the north side. Really, all of the downtown stuff benefits the south side a lot more. The reason is that downtown is a lot more accessible than north OKC is. If it weren't for the uptick in downtown, all of the non-government jobs would be going far north and everyone knows it.

My point was simply that on all of the pro-OKC information that's out there, and every time we're showing off how great OKC actually is..what we're really marketing is the north half of our city. Whenever we're bragging about businesses like Full Circle and Bollinger's, Musashi's and Iron Starr, all of the art galleries, the Adventure District museums, places like the Prohibition Room and the 51st Street Speakeasy, or any kind of mainstream night life like Citywalk or Skyy Bar..we're exclusively selling the north side.

And when I say "mainstream" I just mean anytime that's considered "socially acceptable." Ironically, indy music joints like the Blue Note or the Conservatory are very "mainstream" but a Hispanic night club or a gay night club is not at all considered "mainstream" if that makes since, no offense to anyone who goes to those places. I suppose the north side has its share of those places too, or so I hear..

[stlokc]

Spartan, I agree with every word of your post and there's nothing I can say that is any different. The only "community assets" that are north as opposed to south that can be influenced by public policy are universities and museums, and, really, that ship has sailed. You are right that the better restaurants, clubs, galleries, etc that are celebrated in publications are north, but that's a matter of economics. Those places are going to go to neighborhoods with the resources to support them. There is nothing to keep entrepreneurial southsiders from developing those types of "community assets" for their neighborhoods, and if a Bollingers or Speakeasy or Full Circle or Musashi were to develop south that's great. I think they would be promoted. But they haven't and so they aren't.
I know west OKC doesn't have the sex appeal as far as "dichotomy" but that's just the mindset that has developed in this town over 50 or 100 years. It's not written in stone that the dichotomy has to be north/south. Maybe as the brownfields and greenfields along the river are developed, as we all want, and as C2S is trying to do, we will hasten the day when the city is drawn together.

[rcjunkie]

It's amazing and speaks volumes how a thread seeking a breakdown of votes by precinct has turned into a "Look what I have that you don't, were better because of it".

For Christ sake people stop the nonsense.

[betts]

On the other hand, places like the Paseo and the Plaza District developed de novo. All of those areas began because someone saw value in investing in them.....either homeowners or business owners. I certainly think the Capitol Hill business district has a lot of potential, but, to be honest with you, I haven't paid much attention to the homes around it. If they're the kind of houses that would be good investments for people, and a few businesses start moving in to Capitol Hill, there's no reason it couldn't take off. I'm just not sure what the city should do to make it happen on it's own. I know that the streetscaping on 23rd street happened before retail started to take off there, but don't really remember where the impetus for the streetscaping came from. Perhaps the councilman from the Capitol Hill District needs to push for something like that. Because much of the change in neighborhoods comes from perception and value. If people perceive it's a great value and has potential, they will come. As stlokc said, it's the concept of the river as a dividing point that seems to be some of the issue, as the distance to the CBD is no farther.

As far as Stockyards City goes, we just build a new entrance to it, and I would suspect it will get public transit before lots of other places in the city. I think there's a fair amount of touting of it done by the city. Again, what it needs to take off even more is a few entrepreneurs putting in a hotel perhaps, a few country-western bars/music venues, more retail.

[Doug Loudenback]

It is fair to study & speculate as to the reasons, whatever they may be, for the voting patterns, if any, in this, and/or in any election. The plain facts are that, as a whole, Wards 3, 4 & 5 voted No, and that Wards 1, 2, 6, 7 & 8, voted Yes.

From that generalization, one could conclude that the vote turned on where one lived in the north/south parts of the city. However, on closer look, one could also conclude that the generalization just stated presents an inaccurate and unuseful oversimplification. Let's look at the geography and vote more carefully.

Below, I'm showing a pair of maps. Note that boundary discrepancies exist in them. The 1st map is Ward & Precinct map which was current when the March 4, 2007, vote occurred on the Ford Center vote. I got this map from the County Election Board and then combined it with the Precinct map from the OU Spatial Studies website. The 2nd map is the "vote map" that which appeared in the Oklahoman following the Maps 3 vote. Either Oklahoma City's city limits changed after the March 4 vote or the Oklahoman map has Oklahoma City's limits and precincts wrong, I don't know which. But, even with discrepancies, they are generally similar when superimposed on one another.

Wards & precincts, generally ...



Yes/No votes ...




Overlaying the above maps ...



Same map as above but showing radial proximity
to downtown with concentric rings at about 3-mile distances ...



From the above, at the least these things are reasonable to conclude:

1. No bright line exits which identifies boundaries of the so-called North & South sides. Parts of Ward 3 are north of I-40; parts of Ward 6 are below it and extend as far south as SW 44th, an area which would certainly be characterized as "South Side" in the past if not the present. If one is wanting to analyze North/South divisions, precincts are probably more useful than wards, per se.
2. But, even when only looking a precincts, geographic area does not necessarily equate to the number of voters within them. A comparison of precincts shows some to be geographically large but relatively small compared to others which are geographically small but which contain many more voters. The rural areas of some wards, particularly, in Wards 3, 7 & 5, fall into the category of containing precincts with a relatively small number of voters per precinct. The point is: geography, alone, provides no reasonable basis for concluding that the geographic area is proportionate to an equivalent number of voters in a much more highly populated precinct. Unfortunately, I don't know of a map which presents this information demographically. But it easy enough to have a glance at the precinct-by-precinct votes to see that some precincts dwarf others in the number of votes cast, sometimes ridiculously so.
   
3. Very generally, it can accurately be said that the "North Side" voted yes and the "South Side" voted no. But, whether that generalization makes sense in concluding that a north/south dichotomy-mentality-whatever is relevant in the voter analysis prompted the yes/no votes is an entirely different matter.
4. Very substantial exceptions exist to both general patterns. Notably, the Capitol Hill part of Ward 8 voted No; but the south central areas of Wards 3 & 5 voted Yes, as did significant northern parts of Ward 3 and, to a lesser extent, north-central parts of Ward 4. Conversely, far northwesterly parts of Wards 1 & 8 voted No, as did a chunk of north-central Ward 2 and the northeastern parts of Ward 7, bucking the trend of the "north side" vote analysis.
5. Proximity to downtown was not significant, except as to the approximate 9-square mile inner core. Except for that innermost 3-mile square section, proximity to downtown reflects no pattern which is readily evident ... in fact, the 2nd-radial area reflects more No precincts than Yes.

So, while analysis is a worthwhile thing to do, sweeping generalizations as to a north/south dichotomy are quite possibly inaccurate and misleading. There may be, probably are, good explanations as to why who voted how. But geography, I think, may not be high up on the list.

[workman45]

Thanks for the analysis Doug.

[stlokc]

Excellent work, Doug. Thank you very much!

[Spartan]

I think that analysis puts too much consideration on the rural wards where very few people voted. Honestly if you toss out most of wards 3 and 7, which rural except for small portions where people do live, then you have a more accurate visual. You will see a clear divide between north and south. Yes, there are very few exceptions..some rundown parts of the north side and the nicest parts of the south side by Westmoore High School went the other way. But the overall trend is clearly north yes, south no. There are some nice parts of the south side that went no, and there were tons of bad parts of the north side (NE OKC) that went yes. That proves that regional identity was more indicative of how people voted than income levels, even though you can say both are trends to some extent. It's just that the north/south divide was stronger than the high-income/low-income divide.

On the other hand, places like the Paseo and the Plaza District developed de novo. All of those areas began because someone saw value in investing in them.....either homeowners or business owners. I certainly think the Capitol Hill business district has a lot of potential, but, to be honest with you, I haven't paid much attention to the homes around it. If they're the kind of houses that would be good investments for people, and a few businesses start moving in to Capitol Hill, there's no reason it couldn't take off. I'm just not sure what the city should do to make it happen on it's own. I know that the streetscaping on 23rd street happened before retail started to take off there, but don't really remember where the impetus for the streetscaping came from. Perhaps the councilman from the Capitol Hill District needs to push for something like that. Because much of the change in neighborhoods comes from perception and value. If people perceive it's a great value and has potential, they will come. As stlokc said, it's the concept of the river as a dividing point that seems to be some of the issue, as the distance to the CBD is no farther.

As far as Stockyards City goes, we just build a new entrance to it, and I would suspect it will get public transit before lots of other places in the city. I think there's a fair amount of touting of it done by the city. Again, what it needs to take off even more is a few entrepreneurs putting in a hotel perhaps, a few country-western bars/music venues, more retail.

The city actually recently finished a streetscape along Commerce Street in Capitol Hill. It looks great.

[dismayed]

I'm not offended, I just think the discussion is pointless. Going on for 50,000 words about dichotomy's and cultural assets is meaningless if it does not identify the root cause of a problem and make a suggestion on how to gain more "yes" votes, or just general civic support, in the future. At the end of the day this thread isn't doing much to help if nothing of that nature is accomplished.

It is clear to me that of the $777 million that voters were asked to support, very little of that is going to projects directly based in the "no" regions of the city. I don't disagree that this isn't going to offer some kind of ephemeral help to those districts, I don't live in south OKC, and I do think MAPS 3 was a good idea. But if the question is how do we garner more support city-wide for MAPS in the future, I think the answer is pretty clear... the next MAPS needs to identify "cultural assets" all across this city and offer funds to directly preserve or enhance them. Bundle that up with downtown improvements and I think it's a sure thing to improve the number of yes votes in the districts that we're talking about here.