Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

[checkthat]

Yes, all players and team owners pay the Oklahoma income tax rate charged for each game in Oklahoma. Where Texas does not have a state income tax, then they would not pay.

The Thunder are making the state and city a lot of money in the long run.

How much money is the state contributing to improve the arena and practice facility?

[Laramie]

Proud of Oklahoma City, on infrastructure, you have a long-term investment in local roads thru success of the 2017 bond issue passage.

[HOT ROD]

If you own property in Texas as my family does, those property taxes more than make up for the income taxes Oklahomans pay.

Especially, since you can't file for homestead exemption. You pay property taxes for the County (Milam County) & the School District (Cameron Independent School District) on property in Texas. So don't think because Texas doesn't have income taxes that's some kind of gift.

It may not be a gift for Texans or landowners in TX but it IS a gift for NBA players to play there, which is the point of this diversion discussion. lol.

[Laramie]

It may not be a gift for Texans or landowners in TX but it IS a gift for NBA players to play there, which is the point of this diversion discussion. lol.

My friend, your point is well taken into content, it is a gift to Texans.

You can only file homestead exemption in your resident state, if you own property in Texas (not a resident of Texas) you pay 3x what Texans pay. You receive no benefits from county or the school district on the higher taxes you pay. They don't miss sending you a bill that continues to annually escalate; then when you attempt to sell your property--it's like you don't own it. They ask for a litany of information they already possess. A technique designed to delay the sale, while they continue to collect taxes. Meanwhile, I've had to hire a lawyer, pay him up front, also give earnest money to the realtor while he (lawyer) takes his sweet time with excuse after excuse why he hasn't gotten to attend to your case. Hope you understand my position as well. Take care Hot Rod, will forever remember you guys.

[Laramie]

My aunt who lived in Omaha owned 10 acres next to my property, never got to see a penny of 60 years of paying taxes on her property. She lost her deed in a house fire, they played the delay game until she died; then after 3 years of no one paying her property taxes the vultures moved in paid off what she owed and claimed title to her property.

When her relatives attempted to gain interest in her property; it was too late. Notices had been placed in the paper--that was the end of it.

Forgive me, I know we've gotten off topic. Back to MAP 4 projects.

[Plutonic Panda]

Pete, is it possible to overlay the projects on a map of OKC? I realize we can’t map sidewalks plus some spend does not have a location picked out yet. Just curious if thats feasible. Some use existing buildings as well. Kind of like you do for other projects. If its too difficult don’t worry either.

I am not sure if this is what you are asking for but yesterday I placed some of the MAPS projects on the development page: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?h...9915937496&z=8

[d-usa]

So in the past Ed Shadid made it very clear that MAPS is not log-rolling

During his previous campaigns and stints on the city council he made it clear that we must stick to promises made on what MAPS money would be spend on, and that we have to be vigilant because MAPS is “just a sales tax” and nothing more and the votes didn’t actually allocate any money to any specific projects which means that the city council can decide to change any of the projects. In the past he ran pretty heavily on that fact when he pushed against delays in the streetcar, to hold the council accountable to the promise they made when they campaigned in favor of the tax.

Then Dr. Shadid again reinforced the fact that MAPS is just a single tax vote by gathering signatures to change the proposed spending on the convention center project. Again it was made very clear that MAPS is just a tax and nothing else, and that the city council can change what they want to spend the money on. He attempted to force a public vote to push for such a change.

That’s just two high profile cases where Dr. Shadid made it clear that MAPS is not log-rolling, that it’s just a time-limited tax, and that the city-council is within their rights to pick and choose what they want to spend the money on because making a budget is a core function of the city council and that none of the proposed projects are actually up for a vote and the only thing the public decides on is a tax.


I supported Dr. Shadid during his time on the council, but I question his dishonesty here.

[TheSteveHunt]

If Holt can do a in theory complete 180 away from his gruesome political past, others should be allowed to possibly change up on a few things.

So in the past Ed Shadid made it very clear that MAPS is not log-rolling

During his previous campaigns and stints on the city council he made it clear that we must stick to promises made on what MAPS money would be spend on, and that we have to be vigilant because MAPS is “just a sales tax” and nothing more and the votes didn’t actually allocate any money to any specific projects which means that the city council can decide to change any of the projects. In the past he ran pretty heavily on that fact when he pushed against delays in the streetcar, to hold the council accountable to the promise they made when they campaigned in favor of the tax.

Then Dr. Shadid again reinforced the fact that MAPS is just a single tax vote by gathering signatures to change the proposed spending on the convention center project. Again it was made very clear that MAPS is just a tax and nothing else, and that the city council can change what they want to spend the money on. He attempted to force a public vote to push for such a change.

That’s just two high profile cases where Dr. Shadid made it clear that MAPS is not log-rolling, that it’s just a time-limited tax, and that the city-council is within their rights to pick and choose what they want to spend the money on because making a budget is a core function of the city council and that none of the proposed projects are actually up for a vote and the only thing the public decides on is a tax.


I supported Dr. Shadid during his time on the council, but I question his dishonesty here.

[d-usa]

Simple question then:

Does the city council have the legal power to change how they want to spend any of the previous or future MAPS moneys?

Does a YES vote on MAPS 4 create any legal obligations as a result of that vote for spending that money in any specific way that cannot be changed without any additional votes?

Does electing a council member running on a promise “vote for me and I will raise taxes and spend them on X” constitute log rolling?

[soonerguru]

The city council and mayor will not undermine the votes of the citizens. As soon as they do, they will be voted out.

[d-usa]

The city council and mayor will not undermine the votes of the citizens. As soon as they do, they will be voted out.

That’s not the answer to the question though.

[OKC Guy]

I am not sure if this is what you are asking for but yesterday I placed some of the MAPS projects on the development page: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?h...9915937496&z=8

“Could not open map, try again”

Thanks for trying but not working.

[catch22]

The city council and mayor will not undermine the votes of the citizens. As soon as they do, they will be voted out.

I don’t have any reason at all to believe they will. This ballot is written incredibly vague however. What if we do enter a global recession in the next few years while this tax is active. What if the council is forced by a terrible economy to divert the 1 cent (that is already going only into the general fund) to fund the day to day business of the city?

Would a better way to handle this is to set up a separate fund, call it the City Improvement Fund, unicorn rainbow fund, or whatever you want to call it - as long as it is separate from the general fund. Change the ballot to indicate that the 1 cent tax being diverted into this fund is only to be used for capital infrastructure.

It would be a shame if a crap economy forced the council into voting against the voters strictly because the money is coming into the bank account when the account is almost on overdraft.

[ctchandler]

Thanks but I use DuckDuckGo

OKC Guy,
What does that have to do with anything? I use DuckDuckGo as well, but it's a search engine. Mymaps.google.com is not the google search engine.
C. T.

[Plutonic Panda]

“Could not open map, try again”

Thanks for trying but not working.

It’s working for me?

[soonerguru]

I don’t have any reason at all to believe they will. This ballot is written incredibly vague however. What if we do enter a global recession in the next few years while this tax is active. What if the council is forced by a terrible economy to divert the 1 cent (that is already going only into the general fund) to fund the day to day business of the city?

Would a better way to handle this is to set up a separate fund, call it the City Improvement Fund, unicorn rainbow fund, or whatever you want to call it - as long as it is separate from the general fund. Change the ballot to indicate that the 1 cent tax being diverted into this fund is only to be used for capital infrastructure.

It would be a shame if a crap economy forced the council into voting against the voters strictly because the money is coming into the bank account when the account is almost on overdraft.

No. This ballot is no more vague than any other.

[Ed Shadid]

No. This ballot is no more vague than any other.

Not sure if vague is the right word, maybe it is along with others, but in any case the MAPS1 ballot, which started it all, had all 8 of it's projects listed on the ballot. That is very different than the MAPS4 ballot which simply says "one-cent excise tax for 8 years" with no projects listed. Of course, MAPS1 and MAPS4 are essentially identical in that there are very specific capital projects with some money dedicated to operations. And yet, the OKC municipal counselor, and so many others, strongly believe that the MAPS1 ballot would be determined to be unconstitutional today. The only difference is the ballot language. If one identifies the projects in which the tax is going to be spent on (say in a 10 page resolution complete with budgets etc..) then that would be a "limited use tax" which would be subject to the single subject rule according to the OK Constitution. If, on the other hand, a government was simply creating a tax for general operations of the government without projects listed then that would not be subject to the single subject rule. What the City of OKC is saying is that the people are getting ready to vote on a general operations tax for day to day operations rather than a limited use tax in which 16 projects have been determined. After 25+ hours of public meetings, it is so fundamentally dishonest it is farcical. Should be obvious, at a minimum, that the City of OKC is walking a very fine line and irresponsibly playing with fire despite David Holt repeatedly stating publicly that such ballot language is "legally unassailable". But there is no case law which is exactly on pointe. And that is why such case law is needed; it is much bigger(affects all levels of government throughout OK) than just MAPS4.

[catch22]

No. This ballot is no more vague than any other.

I guess. I have no dog in the fight as I can’t vote. I just think this MAPS could be refined a bit. Best of luck to all:

[David]

I don’t have any reason at all to believe they will. This ballot is written incredibly vague however. What if we do enter a global recession in the next few years while this tax is active. What if the council is forced by a terrible economy to divert the 1 cent (that is already going only into the general fund) to fund the day to day business of the city?

The City Council has an existing history of not diverting MAPS funds during recessions, so there's no reason related to the ballot language to believe another recession will change that behavior. As it is the only council members that I am aware of that have tried and failed to divert MAPS funds away from their promised purpose are no longer sitting on the horseshoe.

[OKCRT]

I guess. I have no dog in the fight as I can’t vote. I just think this MAPS could be refined a bit. Best of luck to all:

No Vote for me.

[catch22]

The City Council has an existing history of not diverting MAPS funds during recessions, so there's no reason related to the ballot language to believe another recession will change that behavior. As it is the only council members that I am aware of that have tried and failed to divert MAPS funds away from their promised purpose are no longer sitting on the horseshoe.

Read the MAPS 3 ballot and compare it to the MAPS 4 ballot. There was no legal way for them to divert money in MAPS3 as it goes into a city improvement fund. MAPS 4 ballot dumps the money straight into the general fund with no stipulation of what it is to be used for.

[Ed Shadid]

Read the MAPS 3 ballot and compare it to the MAPS 4 ballot. There was no legal way for them to divert money in MAPS3 as it goes into a city improvement fund. MAPS 4 ballot dumps the money straight into the general fund with no stipulation of what it is to be used for.

Exactly. Thank you catch22. That is a very significant difference.

[d-usa]

So MAPS4 is not log rolling since general revenue and appropriation bills aren’t affected by single subject restrictions?

And MAPS 3 still could have been spend on other things as long as it was “city improvement”.

Dr. Shadid fought both for and against just such diversions of funds.

[David]

Read the MAPS 3 ballot and compare it to the MAPS 4 ballot. There was no legal way for them to divert money in MAPS3 as it goes into a city improvement fund. MAPS 4 ballot dumps the money straight into the general fund with no stipulation of what it is to be used for.

Which still has no bearing on the likelihood of the City Council redirecting MAPS funds due to a recession when we have a documented history of that not happening. If they had wanted to before, they could have found a way regardless of which city fund the money was initially put into. The big sticking point that if the City Council ever chooses to do this, it puts a stake in the MAPS brand which it would probably never recover from, and nobody running the city wants to turn off that money faucet.

Weird that one of the former council members who explicitly tried to redirect MAPS funds keeps harping on this. Feels like it should actually be less likely now that a known proponent of redirecting MAPS funds is no longer holding one of the deciding votes.

[Laramie]

I've always been impressed with Dr. Ed Shadid. He has never been a 'yes' man when he was on the city council. Where he lost my vote was with MAPS--where his position has been more in opposition or doing away with MAPS entirely.

Sure we could make that penny sales tax a permanent part of the city's General Fund and lose our 'say' in where we direct $95 million in annual capital improvements.

The additional penny sales tax revenue gives us an opportunity to direct some funds toward our aging infrastructure that is in need of continuous renovation or replacement.