Need some clarification on the above. Are you saying that MAPS 3 changes that? In what way?

Just FYI but according to the City, currently we have 60 miles of trails with 80 more soon to be complete (through previous bond issues?). That means the City has an astounding 140 MILES of trails. The MAPS 3 proposal will add 57 to that number "virtually completing" the City's master plan of just over 200 MILES of trails. WOW!


Not sure why it doesn't complete it, why it just comes close...

Does $702,000/mile seem a bit high for biking/walking trails? At least that is the "cash" price, rather than using bond money (apparently used for the 80 miles soon to be open), when the actual cost is 2 or 3 times (when you include the money paid back in interest). Maybe it's high, maybe it isn't, really don't know the answer.

I recall that Seattle spent about $250 million for bike lanes within the last couple of years. Obviously things are more expensive there, but perhaps that gives a bit of perspective, as they already had a fairly decent system prior to that.

If you haven't read it, here is the OKC Master Trails Plan that is referred to:

http://www.okc.gov/trails/trails_plan.pdf

This isn't a solution, but it's a decent start. It would allow riders (who can cover a lot of ground during a bike ride....it's a simple and quick ride to go the entire length of the trail along the Oklahoma River) to have much longer continuous rides available to them. One of the reasons the system needs to be more extensive is the large physical size of the city. More compact cities don't need as many miles to connect features.

We still need many, many more bike lanes on streets, but the combination of more sidewalks and trails will give safer options for traveling longer distances.

There's an interesting article about the rise of the creative class, and what appeals to them when looking at cities. Although he's got a specific type of person in mind in this article, and we rank quite low in our ability to attract this class, I think you can lump a larger number of young people into the group who are looking for cities where they can get the following type of lifestyle. The urban park plan, bike and walking trails, sidewalks, the kayak course and simply the general renewal of our urban core that has started with the original MAPS and which would be fostered with MAPS 3 are all things that appeal to them:

"The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida

The people I talked to also desired nightlife with a wide mix of options. The most highly valued options were experiential ones---interesting music venues, neighborhood art galleries, performance spaces, and theaters. A vibrant, varied nightlife was viewed by many as another signal that a city "gets it," even by those who infrequently partake in nightlife. More than anything, the creative class craves real experiences in the real world.

They favor active, participatory recreation over passive, institutionalized forms. They prefer indigenous street-level culture---a teeming blend of cafes, sidewalk musicians, and small galleries and bistros, where it is hard to draw the line between performers and spectators. They crave stimulation, not escape. They want to pack their time full of dense, high-quality, multidimensional experiences. Seldom has one of my subjects expressed a desire to get away from it all. They want to get into it all, and do it with eyes wide open.

Creative class people value active outdoor recreation very highly. They are drawn to places and communities where many outdoor activities are prevalent---both because they enjoy these activities and because their presence is seen as a signal that the place is amenable to the broader creative lifestyle. The creative-class people in my studies are into a variety of active sports, from traditional ones like bicycling, jogging, and kayaking to newer, more extreme ones, like trail running and snowboarding.

Places are also valued for authenticity and uniqueness. Authenticity comes from several aspects of a community---historic buildings, established neighborhoods, a unique music scene, or specific cultural attributes. It comes from the mix---from urban grit alongside renovated buildings, from the commingling of young and old, long-time neighborhood characters and yuppies, fashion models and "bag ladies." An authentic place also offers unique and original experiences. Thus a place full of chain stores, chain restaurants, and nightclubs is not authentic. You could have the same experience anywhere.

This may be one of your infamous "apples and oranges"? May be mixing up bike lanes (which probably would be more expensive) and bike trails (as seen in the various renderings under the Trails heading. So still don't know if the cost is high or not.

Is there a specific section(s) you were wanting to direct? It is a 176 page file...

It looks like the trails under MAPS 3 essentially connects the different segments. Currently if you want to get from one to another, you load up your bike, drive there and then ride. Understand the convenience factor there that this would solve IF that is what you want to do (go from the River to Hefner on your bike).

While I understand that trying to cover that kind of ground is much easier on a bike than on foot, we are still talking about something like 150 miles currently (granted, it is unconnected). Just don't see the real need for 200 miles of uninterrupted trails (walking or biking). Only people I can see utilizing that is marathon type trainings). Even then, there are a myriad of places just along the Grand Boulevard trails where while connected, it is not uninterrupted. You have to spot at every block and deal with crossing traffic.

Amazing! Betts is worried about "Bike Trails". Are you aware that there are families that can barely afford FOOD? There are families that can barely put gas in their car to get to work? There are families that can barely afford their mortgage or rent?

Do you realize that many have lost their jobs right before christmas? Many won't have a Christmas. Many are getting "Pink Slips" daily?

And all i've heard you comment on is the lack of "bike trails". If these people don't vote NO for another tax they are what? If these families vote NO and have the safety of their family as a Priority then what's wrong with that?
Where is all of this TAX money going to come from? You and the few thousand people who still have jobs? The projected money comes from EVERYONE. The Everyone we plan to TAX are UNEMPLOYED! Right? Over 7%! We didn't get 100 million dollars a year when the economy was GREAT and we had 4% unemployment. How are we going to get to the 777 Million? Maybe you can answer. The Mayor can't.
Bike Trails! WOW!

Sure many aren't going to have a fun holiday season but it doesn't make sense to vote down these quality of life improvements because of less than 10% of the population

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

What? There are more than 10% struggling out there. Those are the backs you plan to ride to your "quality of life improving" park and bike trails. Why don't we just say "Donate"? Lets make it a Private Park! If you don't want to pay then don't. I mean if your not going to have a "fun" holiday season then don't give. You won't be given access to this great Park is the only downfall.

Obviously, you are far removed... While you are at it, lets stairstep all the wheelchair ramps. Hey your voice must be all nasally what without a nose and all, why'd you cut it off again?

Your argument might be the worst pro-MIII that I've heard.

Obviously, you are far removed... While you are at it, lets stairstep all the wheelchair ramps. Hey your voice must be all nasally what without a nose and all, why'd you cut it off again?

Your argument might be the worst pro-MIII that I've heard.

We are all forced to donate to them so I'm fine with them having to throw some back at us to help fund for our highly successful MAPS projects

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

Just an observation here, since I don't care one way or the other in this vote. Easy's point is valid , but so would be reversing it. Maybe it doesn't make sense to vote for these improvements because only about 10% of the population is actually going to use them? Maybe it doesn't make sense to vote at all for items like these cause only 10% of the population actually gets out and votes on these off peak (non-November) ballot elections. Okay that may be a stretch...because 20-30% will probably show to vote, well maybe not that much.

There are good points on both sides. I'm in Norman so I don't get a vote. Has MAPS impacted me? You could argue that the first round of projects have helped OKC to get to this point and allow us to take for granted what we have today. MAPS3 has some good projects, and it has some worthless projects. I think people may be tired of everything concentrated on downtown (for the most part) and really don't get a damn about bike trails. For me, Bricktown has lost any appeal. I have zero reason to go there because I can get whatever I want elsewhere. I think it is almost 2 years now since I've stepped foot down there. Use to go pretty regularly to eat, catch a movie, walk around, what have you. I still do all those things, but there are better venues (for me) to do those.

With all that said. MAPS3 should still pass thanks to the 10% that actually show up to vote. It'll make downtown look totally different in 2020 than it does today.

__________________
AnvilCrawlers.com - Oklahoma weather resources

I would think most of the poor would benefit greatly by the park...10 bucks a month for a limited time to get free weekend outings for the family for years to come

Even if they have to use the bike trails to get there

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

Maybe they could catch you roller blading through it. You'd wait 11 minutes for the Police to show up. They'd be long gone by then. With only a few bums as witnesses. mmmmm your right they would benefit.

Its not like they've hired Amy Mcree to do I "I dont want to be the central park jogger!" ad

I guess you are right...Get tired of seeing the reports of the dozens of muggings at Lake Hefner on a daily basis...Why you never see anyone out there anymore

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

How many crimes did we have in that are last year? Do you know? Is the new park location and lake hefner the same? Not....

If you count the walked tabs at Louie's I'm guessing 10 or so

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

They'd have to get in there cars to drive downtown for it though, and gas prices are expensive in the months it'd get its peak use.

You know, a downtown park may be nice, but would they not better benefit from a nearby park? Why is downtown the only focus when OKC is one of the biggest cities by area in this country? NYC, which has about half of the land area, has 1700 parks. People don't have to use Central Park, they can walk (yes, walk) to a park in their area. Would it not be greener to have parks throughout the city, so that people didn't have to get into their cars and drive to it from southeast OKC to enjoy nature?

One of Oklahoma city's biggest problems is it's size. What would REALLY be nice would be to have mass transit that would allow all of us to get to the park without driving. But there is also something unique about a community park where people from all over the city can join together. Ever been to a festival or concert at Millenium park in Chicago? Regardless of your politics I would hope you could appreciate the tremendous sense of community we saw in Chicago when the city gathered there to hear Obama's acceptance speech. I think it's easy to underestimate the importance of public spaces like that on a city's spirit.

Like I said, NYC has, listed, more than 1700 areas. They have a damn fine mass transit, but they're not putting all the importance in one big park. They know people need things close to where they live. Otherwise, people would be forced to drive from the outskirts of the city to enjoy it, which increases traffic, exacerbates any perceived parking problems, and does far more to hurt the environment than any green space the park would provide.

It's not underestimating the importance of public spaces at all, in the slightest. There's nothing even resembling that. I'm stating that people are going overboard on the value of one big one if it came at the expense of all the others. Having a big central park is fine, but there's little value in forcing people to use that while other parks go unfunded. Stating that the park will give people a chance at a cheap outing is fine, but so would parks around the city, so would current parks if they were better supported. You can have that park and have it be an option, but you can't make it the option, which a lot of critics are seeing it as. Why has this one been decided to be downtown? There are a lot of populated areas of the city that could use it. That alone isn't enough reason. You can't be solely downtown minded when expecting people to support measures. That's fine for those living downtown, but most people don't go downtown that often. They won't keep subsidizing the mayor's playthings. If people are looking nearby and seeing their parks are going unfunded, you can't reasonably make the claim that they're marginalizing the importance of public space.

OKC large land size can definitely be misleading. Probably better to compare us with other cities that have similar populations and square miles. Or at least parks/acreage per capita.

While we don't have anywhere near 1700 parks (how many acres?), we aren't devoid of parks either. City of Oklahoma City | City Parks lists about 113 parks in the OKC City limits comprising "more than 6,900 land acres". So adding a 70 acre Park is adding 1% to the City's acreage total. Not a huge increase.

While the downtown 70 acre park is certainly the (park) focus of MAPS 3, parks are being taken care of most recently in the 2007 General Obligation bond issue.

By the way, did anyone else catch the full page MAPS 3 ad in Saturday's Oklahoman? It was about the Park and the size has dropped from the 70 acres back to the 40 acres (as mentioned in the C2S material). It also mentioned there were going to be formal playing fields ("sports fields"...softball, soccer etc) which I had seen previously as not being part of the "Central Park" but in the string of parks extending South, on the other side of the Skydancer Bridge crossing the new I-40? At least not part of any of the renderings that I have seen of the "Park"...

iron, people struggle everyday. It's a harsh but everyday reality. The rest of the world can't but on the breaks for the sake of struggling families.

I hope these families find themselves in a more fortunate situation. I really do. But the city still has to move on.

Besides, using the current economy to shoot down this proposal is a bad strategy, especially when no one knows what the economy is going to be like in 2011 or 2012. The city could be pulling in MORE than $100 million.

__________________
Continue the Renaissance!!!
www.okcpulse.net

Why downtown? Because great cities have great downtown parks and great downtowns. Central Park, the Boston Public Garden and the Boston Common, Millenium Park and Grant Parks in Chicago are as well known as almost any tourist attraction in these cities. Why? Because people love them, they're a refreshing green space in an urban landscape, and because they are community gathering spaces. When we first moved to OKC one of our first thoughts was, "where is the park?", followed by "what an ugly downtown" it's definitely better than it was, but has a long way to go.

I looked at the park site and took something different from it. The fact that it states that the ground maintenance division (and it's rather generic name) takes care of other areas makes me believe that the 6,900 includes all city land, not just park land.

For the acreage question, the top 10 parks they list (Central Park is actually fifth largest in size) equal more than 11,000 acres, spread across all five Burroughs. Like OKC, they include all recreational public sites, it seems, and only city parks, but the main thing to take from it is that it's spread out. Now, it's a much larger population, but it's half the space. They have it right, public sites can't really be centralized to one district, they have to be spread out and they all have to be supported.

There's nothing against the idea of a big local park, but if you're going to try to sell it to people, you better be sure they can't look at their own public spaces and see them losing city support. If you do, they see it as them paying for rich people's toys. When I hear complaints about the park, that's part of what I'm hearing.

I still think it begs the question of why? Why should the one park on this big-money ballot be located where the smallest (and most likely wealthiest) portion of city residents live? If I'm in part of the city that doesn't have much in public spaces, you can damn well bet that I'm annoyed at the prospect.

Quick question, were you the one that lived downtown? I can't keep all my posters straight.

Great cities do have great parks. Great cities have all their largest parks elsewhere. You know why? Because great cities know that great parks are for the citizens who support them, not for tourists who are touring downtowns. They know that people shouldn't have to consider taking transport, public or private, if they want to enjoy a city park. It's why Central Park, Boston Common, and Grant parks aren't the biggest parks and why those cities have made conscious efforts to make sure there are public spaces available well beyond the downtown urban centers. If you want to go to a park in NYC, Boston or Chicago, you're can go to a park and you can go to one close to where you live. You don't have to ponder the question of whether public transport is available because you don't have to go that far.

Now, OKC is more spread out than those cities, but the same lesson should be taken, they don't rely on major centralized parks. Compared to other parks the cities have, they have downright small downtown parks. They have their parks all spread out.

If anyone who is being asked to vote for MAPS can look and see local public spaces going unsupported so downtown residents can have a bit of "green space" in their backyard, what incentive do they have to vote for it? I'm not asking because I'm against it, I'm asking because some of the arguments for it have been really weak and "trust us" doesn't hold weight as an argument for anything, much less giving a lot of money to the government.

I live downtown but lived near OCU when I first moved here and have lived all over the city. My interest in a downtown park has existed since we moved here, I having lived in Chicago and my husband in NYC and Boston. Perhaps that has created a downtown park preference, but we've actually done more than just visit. We know how the locals feel about their city parks and want to replicate that feeling. We're going to have to agree to disagree because I sense a fundamental difference in perspective.

We need to get the corpse of milton friedman and agusto pinochet and prop it up in Betts living room