Believe it or not folks, I went into my polling place today with an open mind. I'd raised a few issues on here that were very important in my eyes regarding this measure. Specifically, there was no sunset clause after the state fair improvements were paid for -- which Mayor Cornett had said would be 25 years from now.

What I was shocked to find was something that was not discussed. Out of the money collected, only 6/11 would go to the state fair improvements. Those improvements would be decided, and the money would be spent by the State Fair Board, a private non-profit corporation composed of many well-to-do OKC business people that meets in private. 4/11 would be spent on projects to "promote tourism" -- none of which have yet been specified! 1/11.. well, I didn't get that far because I just voted no.

Actually, there WAS mention of the funding you mentioned. It goes to a good cause. I STILL say... YES! YES! YES!!!!

Yes, like I said, it was to go to tourism related venues... My question was.. "Like what?"

Nothing was specified. I'm sure if it was something that the people of OKC would be interested in (and not some backroom deal), they'd be touting that as a selling point.

This measure absolutely reaks.

Others can probably speak more to this, but I believe "promote tourism" means the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which to me is terribly underfunded. I think our CVB could do a lot more -- put together packages, place print ads, establish a more aggressive convention-seeking machine -- if it had the money. Hopefully this will pass and give them the resources to tout OKC's horn more loudly.

Floater, you can read into it all you want. What I'm saying is that if they wanted to improve the CVB, they would have certainly made it a selling point. They didn't do that. 4/11 of the money goes to unspecified purposes that will "promote tourism". That could mean paying for the remodeling of the new IHOP in Bricktown for all we know.

It provides absolutely no plan for the money. In the past, the citizens of OKC have watched their tax money being spent on private projects like Bass Pro Shops because someone knew someone else. They could have written this thing a LOT better than they did, but they didn't. It was most certainly by choice that it was so open-ended.

The 4/11 and 6/11 proposal did clear something up for me that would have been a positive though had the 4/11 been defined better -- 6/11 will continue to go to the Fair even after the project is paid for if the legislation is left unchanged. I'd say 25 years from now, we'll probably need a similar overhaul, so that could be good.

I just wish that the State Fair would be run in a more open fashion. If tax money is going to fund a project, I sure don't like my dollars being spent in closed-door meetings of "non-profit" corporations -- especially when the members of those boards tend to benefit greatly from their access to those meetings.

This has been the way to get business done though. Saint Anthony's basically extorted 10 million from the city when they told the council that either they would be given money and land for huge improvements (that weren't absolutely necessary) to their facilities or they would relocate. This was also the way it was done when the OU Med Center wanted to keep their trauma unit open at taxpayers' expense. Manufacture a crisis, then tell the people that they'll lose something that will wreck the city if we don't support some measure.

We need to stand up to these people or this type of business will only continue.

Midtowner, I can understand your frustration. It does seem like an old boy network when it comes to things getting done around here (really OKC is no different than many other places). I do not know why the ballot did not specifically say the CVB, unless other "tourism" bodies would be involved such as the state tourism department. With respect to the language, I would be frustrated too.

But don't let the language spoil the issue. Sure, a defeated measure could be re-petitioned for a vote again. But who knows? I think Oklahoma's media companies could advance the use of referendums if they show the precise wording on the ballots before Election Day - that way, we seek answers before having to make a judgment on a ballot.

Midtowner, I can understand your frustration. It does seem like an old boy network when it comes to things getting done around here (really OKC is no different than many other places). I do not know why the ballot did not specifically say the CVB, unless other "tourism" bodies would be involved such as the state tourism department. With respect to the language, I would be frustrated too.

But don't let the language spoil the issue. Sure, a defeated measure could be re-petitioned for a vote again. But who knows? I think Oklahoma's media companies could advance the use of referendums if they show the precise wording on the ballots before Election Day - that way, we seek answers before having to make a judgment on a ballot.

Too bad the biggest of the media companies (Oklahoma Pub Co) is owned by the Good 'ol Boys in Chief. As far as the news channels, they did go up against the Daily Oklahoman once back in the 70's and were lambasted for it (remember Vince Orza and his investigations into the OIA, State Fair Board and other such agencies?)

The media doesn't do real stories like that anymore in OKC. They'll go after something like an Andrews murder, or some politician cheating on their wife, or freakin' Jesus being taken out of a school's Christmas play. But when it comes to taxpayers' money being doled out to the friends of the politicians, that's just not newsworthy anymore.

Midtowner...what was the benefit of you voting no? Even if the money is mishandled, it isn't like you're paying for it. Or you're not paying a big chunk of it anyway. Out-of-towners are. And by the way, had you read the proposition at www.okc.gov, you would've had it all spelled out for you. floater is correct.....the 4/11 will give money to the underfunded CVB, to promote everything from our convention center to our state fair park (to try to attract better horse shows to our city). With an issue like this, you can't spell out everything the CVB is going to do with the money....the ballot would be 5000 pages long.
And remodeling IHOP doesn't help promote tourism, so that's absolutely absurd. Promoting tourism involves brochures, commercials, improving facilities, producing a more agressive organization to attract horseshows and conventions to our city, etc.
Basically the reason the CVB was included in this was because they pushed to be included.......they basically made the claim that they were just as severely underfunded (in fact, probably moreso) as the State Fair Board. I personally am more than happy to give the CVB more money. It will probably result in better conventions and better horseshows in our city.

And the State Fair Board has already approved the long range plan for state fair park. The 6/11 will be used for it. You can view the master plan if you'd like. It's been available for some time now.
Again, we could've voted each building separately, and each promotion project separately, but we would've had to vote for a million different propositions. Could you imagine that? A proposition to refurbish Barn #1. A proposition to refurbish Barn #2. A proposition to refurbish Barn #3. A proposition to refurbish Barn #3. A proposition to refurbish Barn #4. A proposition to refurbish Barn #4. A proposition to refurbish Barn #4. A proposition to refurbish Barn #5. A proposition to refurbish Barn #6. A proposition to refurbish Barn #7. A proposition to refurbish Barn #8. A proposition to build a new barn # 25. A proposition to build a new barn arena. A proposition for overhaul of the space needle. A proposition for landscaping around the space needle. A proposition for an overhaul of the north building of the Made in Oklahoma Building. A proposition for an overhaul of the south building of the Made in Oklahoma Building. A proposition to impove landscaping around the north building of the Made in Oklahoma Building. A proposition to improve landscaping around the south building of the Made in Oklahoma Building. A proposition to replace cars on the monrail system. A proposition to improve the Grandstand. A proposition to tear down All Sports Stadium. A proposition to replace All Sports Stadium with a parking lot. A proposition to improve the Transportation Building. A proposition to improve Carriage Hall. A proposition to improve the Centennial Building. A proposition to build a new Arts and Crafts Building. A proposition to build a new Modern Living Building. A proposition for more paved parking on the south lot. A proposition for more paved parking on the north east lot. A proposition to pain the State Fair Arena purple. A proposition to paint the roof of the Internationl Building pea green! :)

I mean...come on! We could go on and on!

A simple solution might have been to just create another Oversight board.

Simply put, we didn't need to vote for a plan for the money, because the plan is already in place. If the State Fair Board and CVB start screwing around with the money, we jsut vote another measure canceling out the one we just voted for.

The problem with Oklahoma is that there are too many restrictions and red tape. For once, this proposition has little red tape. The State Fair Board is able to spend the money where they see fit, without having to jump a bunch of hurdles.

Regardless, I voted for the future of Oklahoma City. If this fails, we'll lose about half of the horse shows we currently have....possibly more. I doubt it will fail though, so we don't have to worry about it.

I think voters in this city have made their opinions be known. Oklahoma City Public Schools suffered for many years as a result of mishandling the bond issue in 1993. Every bond issue after that failed. It wasn't until MAPS For Kids that the city voted for another bond issue....and that was only because the new proposal included oversight outside of the district.

If the State Fair Board and the CVB screw this up, they'll forever lose their chance of being voted any more money in the near future.

I love it when I vote yes for something and some nay sayers say we do not need what the money is for. Especially new police cars, new stations, new cops or something to protect us... Then, if by chance it DOES fail that same nay sayer gets car jacked and wonders where the cops are. Sorry, pal. You did not want more cops. You had your chance.

Yes. I know. This is not for cops. It is for a modern fair grounds. Same principal, however. These nay sayers will wind up asking where the horse shows are and why the state fair is losing attendance and their car is stuck in the mud on the parking lot. Sorry pal. You had your chance. You did not want it.

I also love it when these things pass and the nay sayers both scream about passage. It is that same nay sayer I see using the facilities THEY voted against... And loving using them. I, however, rub it in... And love it. :Smiley199

A simple solution might have been to just create another Oversight board.

Simply put, we didn't need to vote for a plan for the money, because the plan is already in place. If the State Fair Board and CVB start screwing around with the money, we jsut vote another measure canceling out the one we just voted for.

The problem with Oklahoma is that there are too many restrictions and red tape. For once, this proposition has little red tape. The State Fair Board is able to spend the money where they see fit, without having to jump a bunch of hurdles.

Regardless, I voted for the future of Oklahoma City. If this fails, we'll lose about half of the horse shows we currently have....possibly more. I doubt it will fail though, so we don't have to worry about it.

The measure did not say that the CVB would be getting that money. It was VERY open-ended on where that money went. I don't care what the master plan for the city says. That's not what's being voted on. Bass Pro proves that point fairly well.

I would be 100% for an oversight board that conducts open investigations and inquiries into the handling of public money. It's a shame that we do not already have one. There were public offices in the past that had such power, but as soon as they used that power, they were effectively neutered.

Patrick, I've said before that the numbers related to the horseshow industry are obviously VERY inflated. It's a good chunk or revenue at stake, but I think this is a bigger issue for the people of OKC.

Anderson, the police measure was a COMPLETELY different issue. We knew where that money was going. Unfortunately, as with most proposals, that money is also being mishandled and our policemen (or at least the gentlemen I know) have yet to really see anything come of that measure. In fact, I tend to think the way that money was handled caused voters to get a sour taste in their mouths when the same type of measure came around for the Sherrif's department.

I agree that law enforcement in this city needs a LOT of help. Our crime statistics are through the roof. We meet or excede places like Compton and Detroit in many statistical categories which should have you scared.

All I'm asking is that the people in charge deal fairly and honestly with our money. Maybe I'll run for office some day, and if I win, I can become Oklahoma City's John McCain :D

Yes. I know. This is not for cops. It is for a modern fair grounds. Same principal, however. These nay sayers will wind up asking where the horse shows are and why the state fair is losing attendance and their car is stuck in the mud on the parking lot. Sorry pal. You had your chance. You did not want it.

I also love it when these things pass and the nay sayers both scream about passage. It is that same nay sayer I see using the facilities THEY voted against... And loving using them. I, however, rub it in... And love it. :Smiley199'

mranderson.....that is so true! I couldn't have said it better myself.

I didn't vote against the facilities. I didn't really even vote against the tax. Had they authored it in a way that didn't lend itself to corruption and the good 'ol boy system, I would have voted for it. But this 6/11, 4/11, 1/11 crap showing up on the ballot turned me off.

I was all for MAPS. I was all for the police sales tax. This, however, I thought was an insult to our intelligence as voters. I'm disappointed that as a voting public we fell for it. I can only hope now that our public officials and the non-elected members of the "not-for-profit" fair board do not mishandle our tax dollars.

If past performance is any indication of future results, I think we can see where this will go.

Midtowner, to be real honest with you, I'm glad the MAPS use tax money was used for Bass Pro. Had Bass Pro not been built, we would probably still be looking at a mound of dirt on the canal south of Reno. Bass Pro is the reason Bricktown is growing today. It has spurred the growth in Lower Bricktown. If you don't believe it, talk to Mr. Harkins yourself. He wouldn't have built here if it wasn't for Bass Pro.
It's not like we're not going to get that money back that we shelled out on Bass Pro. With lease payments and increased sales tax revenue, it was a pretty good risk to take. In the end, we're basically going to be the owners of a Bass Pro building on the canal that we didn't have to pay for (as I said...the money we paid is being paid back by the methods mentioned above).

Sure, the revenue may be inflated, but I think it's clear that the horse shows do have an impact on our local economy. I spoke with the owner of the Hampton Inn franchise on Meridian awhile back, and he told me that about 65% of his business is from horse shows. He said if we lost any of those horse shows, his business would definitely be hurt. I don't disagree with him.

I think arguing the exact amount is moot point. Truth is, the horse shows do pump money into our local economy. When horse owners come in from out of town to these shows, the spend money at hotels, restaurants, western wear stores, service stations, etc. This is money for our city.

We used to rake in quite a bit of money off the National Finals Rodeo. Now, that money is gone....Las Vegas is raking in the cash. Losing that show alone should be an impetus to better support our fair grounds' facilities.



Now about law enforcement.....the last bond issue passed for law enforcement provided money that hasn't been entirely spent. Many new police cars are already on the street. One thing you have to remember about bond issues....everything occurs on a timeline thoughout the life of the bond.
You know...you could look at our schools right now and say...well, MAPS for Kids was a waste....our schools haven't received anything. Or you could've looked at MAPS in 1997 and said...well, I guess that MAPS tax we passed in 1992 was a waste....none of the projects have been completed yet. Everything takes time. Unfortunately, there's a lot of red tape to go through.

The lack of police equipment is NOT the reason for the sheriff's tax not passing. The reason the Sheriff's tax did not pass, was because the only one for it was the sheriff himself. Even the city council and the mayor at the time campaigned against it. If you haven't noticed, our city leaders gained a lot of trust following the completion of MAPS. People tend to listen to what they say now. Since the completion of MAPS, we've seen MAPS for Kids, a major city bond issue, the extension of the original MAPS, and now the hotel tax increase approved. That says something about the trust people have in our city council and our mayor. Had the council and mayor supported Whetsel's tax increase, it probably would've passed. The reason the city opposed it was because Whetsel kind of went out on a limb and didn't even consult the city about the tax. Sure, he has the right to try to pass his own tax, since he is in charge of the county law enforcement dept., but I think it's the way he went about doing it that upset many council members and the mayor.

Midtowner, through MAPS and MAPS for Kids, I think the city has proved that it can be trusted. People have finally gotten everything they payed for through these projects. That's why people trusted the city with this money.

All I'm asking is that the people in charge deal fairly and honestly with our money.

Midtowner, I definitely don't disagree with you there. If the city mishandles this money, I think most people will think twice about passing any future bond issues, MAPS taxes, etc. This alone should keep the city accountable, and if it doesn't, there's a solution to any mishandlnig of the funds: don't vote for anymore tax increases in the future, until new leaders are voted in that we can trust. I trust Mick Cornett.

Well, remember that this is an election to help Oklahoma City's tourism industry on both sides, for promotion and the main draw of out-of-towners to Oklahoma City... horse shows. I understand that those opposed were not necessarily against the tax or the issues, but voted no because of the way the ballot was worded.

But folks, this isn't grammar class. We're not grading an essay. I agree that the wording on the ballot was not completely clear, but since when was a ballot worded correctly. The ballots on November 2 confused quite a few voters. So did the November 2000 State Question that dealt with the direct sale of Oklahoma-produced wines to liquor stores and restaurants in Oklahoma. Many voters who voted AGAINST it were under some impression that if it passed, wines would be sold in grocery stores across the state. I wish that would have been the case, but the ballot wording was not that clear, and many who voted against it were wrong.

Everyone has different opinions, and they are not wrong for expressing their true feelings at the ballot box, but in the future, keep in mind that you cannot take what's on the ballot at face value. Hold the election board accountable for not knowing how to word a ballot.

I think Midtowner's problem with the wording though, was that it allowed the city and state fair board too many freedoms. I agree with him on that to some extent. It didn't specify where the money would be spent. For example, it just gives the State Fair Board 6/11 of the tax each year, but doesn't specify where the mnoey has to be spent. For all we know, the State Fair Board could spend that money on tidying up the corporate offices. Remember when the OKC Public Schools did that with the 1992 bond issue money?

Deep down though, they still have to remain accountable to the people that voted for it. If they mishandle the money, they'll have a tough time passing any future measures. Just ask the OKC Public Schools. As a result of their mishandling onf the 1992 bond issue, they had to have the city jump in and put together MAPS for Kids. No one trusted the district to properly handle the money anymore. This resulted in several bond issue proposals failing.

The city and State Fair Board will have to remain accountable to the citizens. If they don't they'll pay in the future.

Very true, Patrick. I agree.

And despite these old boy networks, the city is very well-managed financially. The city's AA bond rating from Standard and Poor's and Aa2 rating from Moody's say that our bonds are of high quality -- much better than many other major cities where annual debt (and subsequent tax hikes) is the norm.

I think Midtowner's problem with the wording though, was that it allowed the city and state fair board too many freedoms. I agree with him on that to some extent. It didn't specify where the money would be spent. For example, it just gives the State Fair Board 6/11 of the tax each year, but doesn't specify where the mnoey has to be spent. For all we know, the State Fair Board could spend that money on tidying up the corporate offices. Remember when the OKC Public Schools did that with the 1992 bond issue money?

Deep down though, they still have to remain accountable to the people that voted for it. If they mishandle the money, they'll have a tough time passing any future measures. Just ask the OKC Public Schools. As a result of their mishandling onf the 1992 bond issue, they had to have the city jump in and put together MAPS for Kids. No one trusted the district to properly handle the money anymore. This resulted in several bond issue proposals failing.

The city and State Fair Board will have to remain accountable to the citizens. If they don't they'll pay in the future.

It wasn't just the 6/11 going to the State Fair Board -- I've already discussed them, but perhaps it was a necessary evil. My concern was that it didn't sunset, so someone was going to be getting a lot of money 25 years from now for something the taxpayers would get no say on.

My real concern though is the 4/11 of money that will go for unspecified 'tourism-related' purposes. As we have seen in the past in this city, when there is an unspecified outlet for money, it often ends up as some sort of corporate welfare handout like Bass Pro Shops. Why does anyone think this would be any different?

Now, as far as this not being a grammar class and people 'grading' the language on the ballot.... What an asinine thing to say! We are voting whether or not to approve the ballot. The thing was written presumably by lawyers who have written ballot measures before. The thing has been looked over countless times by its authors. There is no excuse for a 'mistake' on the ballot. Therefore, it's an extrememly safe assumption that there are no mistakes on the ballot. Every word and every meaning serves a purpose. It's something that needs to be read carefully and critically -- not just for its meanings, but for what it could potentially authorize.

I know my ballot writing experience is nothing in comparison to these guys that wrote the city's ballot proposal, but in my time in college, I wrote numerous ballot proposals. Some to for student government, some for my fraternity. In almost ALL cases, my real intent was buried pretty deep in the language -- and while explicit, there are few that would catch what I had actually done until I revealed it following the vote :D. If a college kid can do it, and there's very little/no money at stake, imagine what a trained professional can do when there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. When it comes to laws I'm voting on, I expect nothing short of perfection, or at least a comprimise that I'm willing to accept. In this case, I saw that certain private individuals wrote a ballot measure that would build some nice things for the city, but at the same time enrich certian unnamed individuals at the expense of visitors to our city. It was not something I was comfortable with.

But at the end of the day, my vote was only 1 in 10. The measure passed. I don't think the city will be hurt that bad. It's just unfortunate that as a city we allow things like this to transpire without any real challenge in the court of public opinion.

Midtowner, I understand where you're coming from. Although I voted for the proposition, I think you back up your point well.

Midtowner, I understand where you're coming from. Although I voted for the proposition, I think you back up your point well.

I'm just tired as a citizen of getting hosed in the name of progress. Maybe once law school is over, I'll run for City Council or something.

Of course, then you'll all turn over quotes of me in message boards to the press.

Then it'll be all over :D

good points but, progress from mostly out of towners expense is fine by me, ya us locals may occasionally fork over a few bucks for a hotel but i dont mind paying a few dollars in taxes to help the image of our city. one great thing about the bill is that is was not specific as previously mentioned on this site. this will hopefully allow for the money to be allocated as best fit

Midtowner, I'd vote for you if you'd promise to help get some of the ballot wording right in the future!!!! You've shown that you'd be extremely meticulous in the way you presented propositions, explaining everything to the public before they voted on it. That's not a bad characteristic. At least we'd get things right and close many of the loopholes! I know you're just as much pro-downtown as we are. But at the same time, I understand that you want things done right, decreasing the chance for political scandal and corruption. Had city leaders dealt with Moshe Tal a little differently, we might not have had to wait so long for development to begin on the canal. Unfortunately, for Moshe, the city (urban renewal and even Ron Norick) kind of played him...one minute they told him he was a co-developer on the development project, developing the eastern acres south of Reno.....the next minute, they told him Hogan would be receiving the entire property, both the eastern and western tracks of land. Sad part is by the time Urban Renewal told him the truth, he had already spent thousands on architectural renderings. That just provides an example of where the city should've been more up front. Sure, Moshe made some outragoeus claims, but I could understand his frustration to some extent, at least in the beginning before he started going over board.

good points but, progress from mostly out of towners expense is fine by me, ya us locals may occasionally fork over a few bucks for a hotel but i dont mind paying a few dollars in taxes to help the image of our city. one great thing about the bill is that is was not specific as previously mentioned on this site. this will hopefully allow for the money to be allocated as best fit

Metro.. have you not read one word I've said?

I never said I was against this tax. I said I was against the ambiguity in the proposal. The sad thing is that this type of ambiguity is standard fare for this city. It is done absolutely intentionally. Every loophope allowed is exploited to its fullest.

I am also in favor of improving OKC. The city has a LOT of unrealized potential. There's a saying here in Oklahoma: "The best investment in Oklahoma is in a winning political campaign".

Truer words were never spoken.