MAPS 3 Press release

[metro]

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.

AGAIN, I'LL POST IT FOR THE 217th time! MAPS 3 isn't an official campaign yet folks. It was unveiled to the City Council just last week! Right now all MAPS 3 is, is a CONCEPT! The City Council is still reviewing the up front details for crying out loud! They don't even vote up or down on it until Sept. 29th! Gripes, you want details when they can't even legally promote it yet! Cry me a river folks who want instant grantification and act as if we're entitled to answers to everything immediately. If the council approves it (extremely likely), THEN the OKC Chamber can (and is the legal entity) that can promote it and talk details!! DETAILS ARE COMING FOLKS, LET PEOPLE DO THEIR JOBS! ....FYI, original MAPS details weren't in abundance until AFTER the vote. That's how these things work folks. You don't start building a house without financing in place, same goes for massive projects like this, you dont' spend more money on consultants, surveys, utility analysis', site selection, etc. until your funding is secured, then if it passes, there are safeguards in place to make sure resources are maximized.

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.

No it wasn't, even I remember that and I was early in high school at the time. Heck, if we did that, we'd get no where as a city. If each interest group had their own item on the ballot, and the entire city population group voted, the majority of the voters (rest of the city) would be much larger than the special interest group and nothing would get accomplished. This is the genious of MAPS. The only way to get it passed is if everyone gets a slice of pie!

[OKCMallen]

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.

If he wants to individually vote NO, that's fine. If he wants to block a vote on a legitimate sales tax project based on his individual opinion, he should burn in city councilman hell. He needs to be able to discern between these two ideas.

[kevinpate]

That's correct. The vote will be yes/no to continue, or not continue, the existing temporary tax beyond its programmed expiration date. it will not be an opporutnity to pick and choose a, b, c but also reject f and g.

In short, the announced projects are what you get if the majority of actual votes say to continue the tax. The temporary 1 cent tax actually going away at its scheduled time is what you get if the no votes carry the day.

It's been one of the longest temporary taxes I can recall, but it's done a lot of good over the years too, which is why folks thus far have been voting to extending it for new projects, i.e., finishing MAPs, then Maps 4 Kids, then Upgrade Ford Arena, and coming soon to a ballot box near you, whether to proceed on Maps 3.

[Doug Loudenback]

AGAIN, I'LL POST IT FOR THE 217th time! MAPS 3 isn't an official campaign yet folks. It was unveiled to the City Council just last week! Right now all MAPS 3 is, is a CONCEPT! The City Council is still reviewing the up front details for crying out loud! They don't even vote up or down on it until Sept. 29th! Gripes, you want details when they can't even legally promote it yet! Cry me a river folks who want instant grantification and act as if we're entitled to answers to everything immediately. If the council approves it (extremely likely), THEN the OKC Chamber can (and is the legal entity) that can promote it and talk details!! DETAILS ARE COMING FOLKS, LET PEOPLE DO THEIR JOBS! ....FYI, original MAPS details weren't in abundance until AFTER the vote. That's how these things work folks. You don't start building a house without financing in place, same goes for massive projects like this, you dont' spend more money on consultants, surveys, utility analysis', site selection, etc. until your funding is secured, then if it passes, there are safeguards in place to make sure resources are maximized.

No it wasn't, even I remember that and I was early in high school at the time. Heck, if we did that, we'd get no where as a city. If each interest group had their own item on the ballot, and the entire city population group voted, the majority of the voters (rest of the city) would be much larger than the special interest group and nothing would get accomplished. This is the genious of MAPS. The only way to get it passed is if everyone gets a slice of pie!

Metro, you can be a real jerk sometime.

[Popsy]

Perhaps we could address both of these questions of "all or nothing" or "project by project" on the original and III to Steve as he has the research capacity on both.

[flintysooner]

Here's the link to Steve's blog post: David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot (July 20, 2009).

Many people might forget that the original MAPS ballot – a list of items to be paid by the tax but with just a “yes for all” or “no for all” vote might be difficult to exactly duplicate today due to a court ruling that came out against such ballots a few years ago.

David Holt, assistant to Mayor Mick Cornett, reports the following regarding a potential MAPS 3 ballot:

“Legal interpretations of what an Oklahoma ballot should look like have evolved since the original MAPS vote in 1993. Should the Mayor and Council move forward with a MAPS 3 proposal, the process will certainly conform to the operative law, and the City’s legal office will be exploring those issues as appropriate. It would be our intention to stay close to the basic model the voters have shown themselves to be comfortable with.”

Again that was in July and I don't recall reading more.

[soonerguru]

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."

He's allergic to facts and logic. In my view, that makes him a neanderthal. Sorry you were offended.

[soonerguru]

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.

This is revisionist history. The details did NOT emerge until after the vote. We didn't see blueprints, we saw crude renderings. It will take years to do the drawings and plans, and they may look different than you imagine them today.

[LakeEffect]

Metro, you can be a real jerk sometime.

Agreed. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the Chamber officially announced their campaign today, since City Council voted (7-1) to move forward.

[Doug Loudenback]

With all but one council member on record as favoring the proposal, the council was presented the measure at a special session on 9/22. Following that, midday, it was reported that the Chamber did announce its campaign on 9/22 during a kickoff luncheon. I was not there so I can't give a 1st hand report on that ... for now, see this link although I expect that others will shortly follow.

[metro]

Metro, you can be a real jerk sometime.

I'll leave the opinion's to yourself, but the reality is, they can't and shouldn't release too many details until the council votes on it. What if the council for some odd reason voted no on this Sept. 29th. Details and spending more money on it beforehand would be a moot point. You say you want to have a reason to take back what you said about the Mayor about what he said about public input, but why the heck can't we let him do his job and wait until he and the council get to vote on it, so they can release more information and move forward with it? Lots more information will be coming out after Sept. 29th.

[metro]

Agreed. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the Chamber officially announced their campaign today, since City Council voted (7-1) to move forward.

The official council vote is scheduled for Sept. 29th City Council meeting, however in light of Doug's recent post, it appears they held special session yesterday, so that means today is the first real day they could actively promote it in full fashion. Don't be surprised if we see more details soon, now that it's official, however keep in mind the point soonerguru points out that the original MAPS didn't have much details until after it was passed by voters and funding was in place. These types of projects take years of planning and funding. You can get all the details you want right now, but mark my words, final details will change.

This is revisionist history. The details did NOT emerge until after the vote. We didn't see blueprints, we saw crude renderings. It will take years to do the drawings and plans, and they may look different than you imagine them today.

Exactly, this is what I've been trying to clarify all along.

[Doug Loudenback]

I’ve added a poll in my blog … kinda late (only 6 days to vote) … but, ending September 30, the poll asks, “Do you want more MAPS 3 detail before October 1?” Possible answers are Yes, No, and Don’t care. The poll is located in the upper left area of my blog:



I invite your participation, regardless of your opinion.

[metro]

Here's a link:

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

[Patrick]

I disagree with those that want to vote on separate projects. That was the beauty of MAPS 1. All passed because there was something in it for everyone. But, had we voted on each individual projects, projects like the Ford Center might never have passed. Many people also don't use the downtown library. And the canal was not very popular initially. I think the ballpark and state fair improvements were probably the more popular items.

[Platemaker]

I agree Patrick. If I had been old enough to vote on individual projects back then I think the river project especially would have been a hard sell. Just look at what it's turned into!

[soonerguru]

Patrick is right.

The reason MAPS is now a model for the nation is it included "everything in one vote." Other cities could only do piecemeal development projects for years, constantly running campaigns, which makes citizens weary. And then, they only get one thing at a time, which doesn't exactly stimulate the kind of improvement cities desire.

It's amazing how much MAPS 1 transformed this city. I believe MAPS III will have a similar impact.

The new Gazette sheds light on what voters are thinking. Right now, they narrowly favor passage of MAPS III (before the campaign has even begun). In a scientific poll, it would receive today about 51% of the vote.

Here's what's really interesting:

The most popular things are

1. Citywide sidewalk, bike trails and park improvements
2. The street car

Both of these would pass today on their own.

The Central Park would fail, and the Convention Center would fail miserably. Currently it only has 28 percent support.

The point is, we probably do need the convention center, but it wouldn't pass on its own, so MAPS allows us to pass it and do other great things that are popular at the same time.

I admit I wasn't thrilled myself about the Convention Center, but once it's passed I'm sure it will be great for OKC and I'll look back on it wondering why I was hesitant to support it.

[OSUFan]

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."

I'm sorry but after listening to Mr. Walters ramble for 20 minutes with Mark Shannon it is pretty clear he has limited understanding of most things discussed (and that has nothing to do with his views on MAPS).

[flintysooner]

Steve posted the ballot question on his blog at OKC Central:

Maps 3: The Ballot

[progressiveboy]

Patrick is right.

The reason MAPS is now a model for the nation is it included "everything in one vote." Other cities could only do piecemeal development projects for years, constantly running campaigns, which makes citizens weary. And then, they only get one thing at a time, which doesn't exactly stimulate the kind of improvement cities desire.

It's amazing how much MAPS 1 transformed this city. I believe MAPS III will have a similar impact.

The new Gazette sheds light on what voters are thinking. Right now, they narrowly favor passage of MAPS III (before the campaign has even begun). In a scientific poll, it would receive today about 51% of the vote.

Here's what's really interesting:

The most popular things are

1. Citywide sidewalk, bike trails and park improvements
2. The street car

Both of these would pass today on their own.

The Central Park would fail, and the Convention Center would fail miserably. Currently it only has 28 percent support.

The point is, we probably do need the convention center, but it wouldn't pass on its own, so MAPS allows us to pass it and do other great things that are popular at the same time.

I admit I wasn't thrilled myself about the Convention Center, but once it's passed I'm sure it will be great for OKC and I'll look back on it wondering why I was hesitant to support it.

I find it quite perplexing that the poll conducted overwhelmingly supports park improvements but does not support a Central Park? It seems like a contradiction in terms we want better amenities and improvements city wide for parks but we do not wish to support a Central Park?? Why would the residents of OKC want to keep that filthy nasty area South of Downtown from being redeveloped? The mentality of this thinking just does not add up IMHO.

[Doug Loudenback]

I've OCRed the proposed ordinance, associated council resolution and its Exhibit A which lists the projects, and the proposed ballot, and have converted them into an html file for ease of reading. If there are OCR errors I didn't catch, please let me know.

I'll add the documents to my blog article sometime today, but if you want to see the single document which combines all of the above, click here.

[Urban Pioneer]

I think that is simply an education issue. People aren't sure exactly where the area is and most probably have a hard time relating to the difference of a "World Class" park and their local neighborhood park.

The streetcar ranked high because our volunteers have been tirelessly explaining the value that it offers. The same should be done for the park.

By the way, the scale model of it is on the ground floor of city hall.

[flintysooner]

Seems like a reasonable approach to me.

[CaptDave]

Thankfully, unlike the poll from ch 9, when it comes to an actual vote, the suburbs wont have a say. I think the support for this proposal is MUCH stronger in the actual City of Oklahoma City. We don't have to worry about convincing every Edmondite that this is worth while despite the lack of funding for a train running directly from their front door to the entrance of their office building.

Hey!!! Not fair!! I am one of those Edmondites!!

Well...sort of....kids go to Edmond schools but I have OKC utilities and can vote in OKC referendums. That said - I think we would be nuts to vote no on MAPS 3. The improvements made via MAPS is what kept this transplant here rather than looking elsewhere when my job went away a couple years ago. OKC is poised to become a really cool place to live - not that it is bad now. I for one would love to be able to hop on a train here and ride it all the way to my job in Norman, but that is a few years away.

[brian]

I think the park needs some better planning, but overall I like the MAPS3 plan. I think those are vertical wind turbines in one of those renderings. We do not need to waste park space and money on something that will not pay for itself during its useful life.