Ideas 4 MAPS

[Plutonic Panda]

https://oklahoman.com/article/563842...teve-lackmeyer

[Rover]

Steve doing a chat with bob funk. He’s getting lit up with tough questions.

It isn't tough questioning, it is rude and hostile in many postings over there. Funk has answered all the questions no matter how insulting the poster. Good for him.

Never realized the base here in OKC that just hates and is so suspicious of successful people.

[Laramie]

Bob Funk Jr., stayed with the subject content. Surprised to see a web user ask loaded questions, take a repugnant personal attack on Funk Jr., & at the Oklahoman (State largest circulation) on the advertising the Funk's contribute toward the paper and the vile attempt to put Steve Lackmeyer in an awkward position.

Steve has never been afraid to ask the tough questions, he has always been fair in his reporting.

The Chesapeake Arena, State Fair Colosseum & the MAPS 4 Stadium are projects where there are anchor tenants to help with operational & maintenance costs.

These projects are in the arena-stadium grouping; they help promote the profile of OKC in so many ways. Glad that 70% of the proposed projects will be community-neighborhood project-program proposals; 30% arena-stadium class will have anchor tenants contributing to its upkeep.

You kill MAPS in favor of making the penny sales tax a permanent part of the city's revenue; you will also have killed your greater input voice in charting OKC's future.

[Ed Shadid]

Let the people vote for the stadium, or at least the arena-stadium grouping as a stand alone vote. If this type of tax initiative doesn't represent logrolling then logrolling has no meaning. 80% of poll respondents (Soonerpoll MAPS 4 poll) indicated they would prefer to vote on the projects separately rather than as a package. It is dangerous when elected officials not only defy the will of the large super majority of voters and insist on a logrolling package, but won't even allow public discussion of the matter. In the August 6th meeting, David Holt indicated that they were abandoning the ballot language of MAPS 3 (which called for a temporary sales tax "for capital expenditures") in favor of a simple general fund sales tax (which would then be spent on the projects). This will mark the fourth change in as many MAPS votes. The council continues to tweak the ballot language in an attempt at circumventing state constitution prohibitions on logrolling despite the overwhelming desire of the people of OKC to vote on these projects separately just as we do with our GO Bond votes (the last GO Bond had 14 separate votes; a transit package, a parks package, a drainage package, a streets package, a bridges package, a police/fire package etc...).

[d-usa]

That kind of thinking is what I heard when the opinion pollster plainly made it clear by his questions that being pro-animal shelter makes you anti-homeless and that being in support of programs for the homeless means you hate animals.

Separate it, and every project will die. The “I support stuff I don’t need to get stuff I need and want” aspect of MAPS is what makes maps successful in the past.

[Pete]

Yes, and I have to say that if the animal shelter is so important (and it certainly seems to be), they should have used general obligation bonds to build a new one a long time ago.

Now, it feels like a huge manipulation: "Vote for MAPS4 or we'll kill all these puppies!"


Regardless of what happens with this vote, citizens need to demand the new shelter happens.

[d-usa]

Besides, as Dr. Shadid put it in 2011: “all we’re voting in is a sales tax”.

We can talk about how that money should be spend, heck that is something we do with every election to the city council or for mayor when they talk about their priorities they want to focus on, but in the end it’s a simple vote on a sales tax.

[d-usa]

As far as comparing MAPS to Bond votes:

I am fine with micromanaging the taking on of debt that can not be changed as fluidly compares to taking money first and then having more flexibility on spending it if the income changes.

[Ed Shadid]

Separate it, and every project will die. The “I support stuff I don’t need to get stuff I need and want” aspect of MAPS is what makes maps successful in the past.[/QUOTE]

The "I support stuff I don't need to get stuff I need and want" aspect of MAPS is called logrolling and is expressly prohibited by the State Constitution. Perhaps what is needed is an argument to the State Legislature about how beneficial logrolling has been to OKC and that we should change the State Constitution.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the contention that if you "separate it, and every project will die". There are projects being discussed which have very strong public approval and would almost certainly pass stand alone votes. A soccer stadium, a completely amorphous economic development fund to the Innovation District etc..; tougher sell in a stand alone vote.

[Urban Pioneer]

Yes, and I have to say that if the animal shelter is so important (and it certainly seems to be), they should have used general obligation bonds to build a new one a long time ago.

I'm pretty sure that this project is on par with the EMBARK bus system. It wasn't a priority of former City Manager Jim Couch or major business interests and therefore it was never properly addressed. Short of the positive comments that James Cooper, JoBeth Hamon, Nikki Nice, and David Greenwell have made, I am not sure that the new animal shelter has majority support on the city council and mayor to fully fund the $41 - $43 million new facility despite the obvious public support for it. The rest of the council has pretty much been silent about the animals.

[Pete]

^

Yes, but without the support of the majority fo council it won't get on the MAPS 4 ballot either.

So, if there is majority support, there are other more suitable ways to fund the facility than by lumping it with $950M of things many don't necessarily want to pay for.

[Urban Pioneer]

^

Yes, but without the support of the majority fo council it won't get on the MAPS 4 ballot either.

So, if there is majority support, there are other more suitable ways to fund the facility than by lumping it with $950M of things many don't necessarily want to pay for.

I think that is my point. I'm not sure where we disagree on that. It won't be on the MAPS 4 agenda without the mayor or another one or two people who haven't publicly spoken supportively for it to get on board with it.

I think animal welfare folks just want it resolved as soon as possible and they see MAPS 4 as the next available public timeslot to deal with it. I know that I do on bus transit issues even though you could argue that the bus system could be resolved in the potential RTA vote. Suggesting that it could be dealt with at some future time without a clear alternative is just a gaseous funding suggestion to the animal shelter supporters.

[d-usa]

The "I support stuff I don't need to get stuff I need and want" aspect of MAPS is called logrolling and is expressly prohibited by the State Constitution. Perhaps what is needed is an argument to the State Legislature about how beneficial logrolling has been to OKC and that we should change the State Constitution.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the contention that if you "separate it, and every project will die". There are projects being discussed which have very strong public approval and would almost certainly pass stand alone votes. A soccer stadium, a completely amorphous economic development fund to the Innovation District etc..; tougher sell in a stand alone vote.

Every tax is log-rolling if we go by that standard. Is every part of the city funded by a specific portion of tax that was approved for specific purposes?

Or is the General Fund just that, a general fund for whatever the council wants to spend it on?

[Pete]

Every tax is log-rolling if we go by that standard. Is every part of the city funded by a specific portion of tax that was approved for specific purposes?

Or is the General Fund just that, a general fund for whatever the council wants to spend it on?

We are talking about items for public vote.

And with the general obligation bonds, things are separated out to comply with the anti logrolling law.

[Plutonic Panda]

The "I support stuff I don't need to get stuff I need and want" aspect of MAPS is called logrolling and is expressly prohibited by the State Constitution. Perhaps what is needed is an argument to the State Legislature about how beneficial logrolling has been to OKC and that we should change the State Constitution.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the contention that if you "separate it, and every project will die". There are projects being discussed which have very strong public approval and would almost certainly pass stand alone votes. A soccer stadium, a completely amorphous economic development fund to the Innovation District etc..; tougher sell in a stand alone vote.

+1

[Goon]

Bob Funk Jr. is on Steve's OKC Central chat today, and I never realized how hateful people can be. Take aim at the project, sure. Criticize it however you like, but there are a lot of personal shots being taken at him and Express. Bugs the heck out of me how people feel the need to bash him personally for the project, and doing what any sound businessman would do. But that's just me, and I am not a very radical or hateful person.

It’s sad if the informative aim of the chat devolved into attacks on Funk.

That said, I’m not sure you can ask people to consider a vote that increases their taxes, with one project being dependent (smoke and mirrors about “multi-use” aside) on the success of FC energy and Funk and not expect some of this behavior.

I’m not aware of any other proposed project that has such a singular person who will be responsible for stewarding the City’s investment as Funk will be via his ownership in FC Energy. Again, not saying I agree with the attacks, but can’t say they are totally unexpected...especially when considering the reality that something will be displaced if the stadium makes the final ballot.

[BoulderSooner]

Let the people vote for the stadium, or at least the arena-stadium grouping as a stand alone vote. If this type of tax initiative doesn't represent logrolling then logrolling has no meaning. 80% of poll respondents (Soonerpoll MAPS 4 poll) indicated they would prefer to vote on the projects separately rather than as a package. It is dangerous when elected officials not only defy the will of the large super majority of voters and insist on a logrolling package, but won't even allow public discussion of the matter. In the August 6th meeting, David Holt indicated that they were abandoning the ballot language of MAPS 3 (which called for a temporary sales tax "for capital expenditures") in favor of a simple general fund sales tax (which would then be spent on the projects). This will mark the fourth change in as many MAPS votes. The council continues to tweak the ballot language in an attempt at circumventing state constitution prohibitions on logrolling despite the overwhelming desire of the people of OKC to vote on these projects separately just as we do with our GO Bond votes (the last GO Bond had 14 separate votes; a transit package, a parks package, a drainage package, a streets package, a bridges package, a police/fire package etc...).

it absolutly is not log rolling ... and neither was the last maps vote as you shoudl well know you voted against going forward with some of the projects after the vote from the horseshoe


and of course they are changing the ballot languge they want some of the money to go to capital projects and some to go to endowment/sustainment funds ..

that doesn't all fall under capital projects so a changed is needed ...


what it comes down to is the public trust between the voters and the council (a trust you were happy to break )

[hoya]

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

[BoulderSooner]

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

this is spot on

i will also add that their price asks are very out of whack the stadium that they need shouldn't cost anywhere near their ask ..

they want a lux car ... OKC at best should buy (build) them a mid size .. something 10-12k seats for less than 25 mil

[David]

I'm not for a soccer stadium, but I'm not 100% against it either, as long as it's done right.

I think we need to be realistic about the benefits of a place like this. The Energy is real small potatoes. It doesn't matter if they leave. OKC in 2020 is not OKC in 1990. When we built the Bricktown Ballpark, minor league baseball was our only real sports attraction. I went to one of the last games at All Sports Stadium, and boy it was a dump. Everybody knew we needed to replace it. The first MAPS was a gamble, but the people of this city knew we had to do something, we had to take a chance.

Today we are much better off. We've got an NBA team, which was basically unimaginable 30 years ago. The only sports league bigger than that is the NFL. Minor league soccer is nice, I guess, but it doesn't come within a thousand miles of the NBA. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build the stadium, but we have to keep it in perspective. This is absolutely not any kind of economic driver. It's purely a quality of life program. If you stick the stadium south of the river, on city owned land, and bill it as investment in a heavily Hispanic community, that could work. Treat it basically like a city park. The Energy could play there (they'd have to pay, of course), but you could also allow youth leagues to play there, and host community events, and things like that. Make it so it could be expanded into an MLS stadium if everything falls the right way, but that shouldn't be the selling point.

This, a thousand times.

[Urban Pioneer]

I was disappointed to read Funk’s comments downplaying the Wiley Post Park location. What sort of access do they need??? I mean there are two four lane major streets (Robinson and Walker connecting right to OKC Boulevard, our nouveau Highway. Smells like a canard to me. If they are serious about attempting to get the public’s support on this they would firm up their proposal and lock down the location on the south side.

[Laramie]

Uprooting neighborhood parks has always been a 'no no' with residents. Our Latino population isn't limited to the south-side or Capitol Hill area.

Where are the amenities near Wiley Post Park, places like Bricktown Entertainment or Midtown where there are restaurants for before & after game gatherings. The restaurants would welcome another sports franchise to the area.

We didn't demand that the AAA baseball stadium be moved to a park or the Chesapeake Arena be built on the north side of town. We've built these projects in the core, a central location where ALL city residents could benefit from the facilities. We didn't plan building a cheap inexpensive ballpark, we looked at what other PCL cities were doing, like New Orleans & Louisville.

So, check out Louisville (2020-$65 million, 11,500) and Rochester (2004-$35 million, 13,768); stadiums aren't getting any less expensive per seat.

2020-Louisville, 11,500, $65 million


2004-Rochester, 13,768, $35 million

Look at what we had to invest in the downtown arena to seal NBA relocation; voters were asked to approve another $100 million, $90 for the arena & $10 million for a practice facility.

Funk-McLaughin & Clark already have a practice facility

Either you want a multipurpose stadium in the core to benefit our city or you don't. If you're going to build a half-ass stadium; then drop it from MAPS altogether and don't bring up this vision about building for OKC's future.

[hoya]

Uprooting neighborhood parks has always been a 'no no' with residents. Our Latino population isn't limited to the south-side or Capitol Hill area.

Where are the amenities near Wiley Post Park, places like Bricktown Entertainment or Midtown where there are restaurants for before & after game gatherings. The restaurants would welcome another sports franchise to the area.

We didn't demand that the AAA baseball stadium be moved to a park or the Chesapeake Arena be built on the north side of town. We've built these projects in the core, a central location where ALL city residents could benefit from the facilities.

Bricktown was a terrible place when we built the ballpark. And the land for the Chesapeake was a lot cheaper when the city first bought it. Those areas improved only afterwards.

We didn't plan building a cheap inexpensive ballpark, we looked at what other PCL cities were doing, like New Orleans & Louisville.

So, check out Louisville (2020-$65 million, 11,500) and Rochester (2004-$35 million, 13,768); stadiums aren't getting any less expensive per seat.

2020-Louisville, 11,500, $65 million


2004-Rochester, 13,768, $35 million

I don't know how much a soccer stadium should cost, but it does appear that Funk and Friends are asking for a pretty pricey one.

Look at what we had to invest in the downtown arena to seal NBA relocation; voters were asked to approve another $100 million, $90 for the arena & $10 million for a practice facility.

Funk-McLaughin & Clark already have a practice facility

Again, you compare The Energy to the NBA. That's ridiculous.

Either you want a multipurpose stadium in the core to benefit our city or you don't. If you're going to build a half-ass stadium; then drop it from MAPS altogether and don't bring up this vision about building for OKC's future.

Okay, if you want to be that way then I'll vote against it. I don't really want the thing anyway.

[Laramie]

2021-2028 Oklahoma City, $67 - $72 million,10,000,

[Laramie]

hoya,

Again, you compare The Energy to the NBA. That's ridiculous.

There's no comparison of an NBA franchise to the USL; you could take all USL franchises they wouldn't equal the average value of one NBA franchise.

Didn't compare the Energy FC to the NBA, just acknowledged they weren't asking for a practice facility--a venue that's required of all NBA franchises.

hoya,

Okay, if you want to be that way then I'll vote against it. I don't really want the thing anyway.

Vote your conscience (this is not about me or you), don't allow one or two posters on the forum to get you annoyed over a few posts. Hope you aren't taking anything personal; our difference & right to our opinion are what's valued.

Think more in line of how a facility would benefit the city's potential and the MAPS 4 initiatives, there are a few proposals that will be on MAPS that I don't favor, it's not going to get the best of me--if it benefits the city in some way, great. We all are not going to get everything we or one individual want or don't want on MAPS.