That's the question I'm asking at OKC Central (http://www.okccentral.com) today. Do you believe the mayor and council will decide a MAPS 3 ballot based on what the populace wants or will they be representing a few special interests? What are the implications for central city development?

Do you believe the mayor and council will decide a MAPS 3 ballot based on what the populace wants or will they be representing a few special interests? What are the implications for central city development?

Unfortunately, I believe "we" are toast. "They" will put on there what they want; and "legacy" is definitely a thing that Mayor Mick will want.

Yes, I will express my views to the Mayor and my Council rep., for all the good it will do.

There are SO many things we desperately need--not only in the central part of the City--but throughout the entire City that are totally being ignored, again! I often wonder if it truly does any good to offer suggestions. I'm getting discouraged. :whiteflag

Money talks and bull**** walks. Core to shore is quickly shaping up to be a high-end luxury market only -- a Nichols Hills South. If your name isn't Humphreys or Keating or Walters or something to that effect, don't expect to have much input on this. It's been in development a long time and certain parties are poised to and plan to make a mint off of this deal.

While the public is a definite stakeholder, I don't think the public will have much opportunity for income other than possibly the opportunity to participate in cathartic, yet pointless comment periods at the end of city council meetings.

This, IMHO, is a done deal. It'll probably be scaled back a bit (everything in OKC always is, especially when OCURA is involved), but the players are identified and all of the seats at the table have butts firmly planted in them.

Do you believe the mayor and council will decide a MAPS 3 ballot based on what the populace wants or will they be representing a few special interests? What are the implications for central city development?

Steve, I try to remain optimistic. Our city leaders have made decades worth of boneheaded decisions over the years, but our leadership has seemed a trifle more responsive of late. Particularly, I think the Mayor's decision to allow public input on MAPS is a real departure from our behind closed doors past.

Hopefully, the mayor's gesture wasn't an empty one, and he will listen to his constituents.

Perhaps as a journalist at the state's largest newspaper, owned by a family that is usually involved in key decisions, you can provide us more insight as to what is actually being decided, as those of us not present in these meetings can merely speculate.

SoonerGuru, I can respond as a journalist who is committed to trying to get the story to his readers: decisions are being contemplated and there are people in this community who are concerned that Core to Shore, the river and the Convention Center are being given preference over other proposals.

What I've always heard is if you think your voices aren't being heard, then you should contact the mayor and council. They have to come up with a ballot that they can present to voters and that's more tricky if there's evidence they are ignoring the voice of their constituents. And yes, I've observed where constituent feedback did make a difference.

Think back to the Southwestern Bell Park (people didn't like that it didn't have "Bricktown" in the name and the council forced the team to change their deal; and more recently, the fire department was forced to spend more effort on design for their Bricktown station after people called their council members objecting to the original drawings.

Midtowner, of all people on this forum, I'd expect you to be a fighter on this. If you all think your voices aren't being heard, then you should contact the mayor and council. They have to come up with a ballot that they can present to voters and that's more tricky if there's evidence they are ignoring the voice of their constituents.

Steve, I'm in the midst of studying for the Bar Exam. It's taken the fight out of me. Fortunately, I hear they plan to wait until I'm done with the Bar to really get working on this (no coincidence, IMHO, they need me).

The fact is that there are a number of directions we could go, many of which I would support.

I realize that it's easy to sit back and wait for a proposal to come out and then taking pot shots, but that's probably what I'll have to do. If someone wanted to put me on some advisory panel or public trust where I actually had a voice, I'd serve in a heartbeat. Since that's extremely unlikely for a variety of reasons, I don't think I have much choice in the matter.

If as you say, the focus is all going to be on downtown, city leaders will have a tough sale. Maps 3 needs to have something for everyone. At least part of it should involve significant upgrades to either city parks or mass transit or I think we'll just have to hope that as with the Ford Center upgrades, the North side shows up and the rest of the city stays home on election day.

SoonerGuru, I can respond as a journalist who is committed to trying to get the story to his readers: decisions are being contemplated and there are people in this community who are concerned that Core to Shore, the river and the Convention Center are being given preference over other proposals.

I think that is obvious to anyone paying attention, as it is all they ever talk about. If they try to dis transit, particularly after the mayor's hugely public effort to generate public input on the website, and after the public clearly stated transit was the primary desire of the citizens, then they will be staring down their first MAPS bust, because the anger and resentment from key areas of MAPS support will be heard, loud and clear, at the polls.

The politicians who have to sell this know better. Unfortunately, some of the unelected "city leaders," who have other agendas, may not.

We can't afford to blow it on MAPS III.

Are you in a position, as a journalist, to shine a little light on the discussions we aren't privy to? We already know they favor the convention center and Core to Shore.

The Mayor was very careful to avoid saying he's promoted any certain idea as of yet. Sam Bowman has been bringing Maps III (and Transit in particular) up for the past two or three weeks at City Council. His, and other Council member's opinions, were that they need to determine what is and is not included in Maps III very soon, because it will become too private soon. Steve is correct right now - Council and the Mayor are open, but if people don't respond soon, it'll be too late. And by then, the public may have had enough and Maps III could go down...

My councilman is Sam Bowman and after watching what he had to say at Tuesday's council meeting I am encouraged but believe the more people who call the mayor and council members the more likely we are to get transit on the ballot. For those of you who haven't seen the discussion it is quite good and can be found on the city's web site. Urban Pioneer put the link here yesterday. It spurred quite a discussion in our household yesterday. I promise you people, contacting your local representatives can be very effective.

Hmm. After giving this whole concept--of a MAPS III, w/o much (any?) "real" citizen input, I have a radical idea. Let's just vote against it. Do WE (as citizens) have the nerve to tell those "elected to represent us" that WE want more of a say in how 'they' spend OUR money???

Yes, it is a radical idea. I know I will catch heat for it....but I am a tired citizen. I'm tired of a few taking advantage of their unique positions of power, and using OUR money to do it no less, to cram things down our throats when the only 'advantage' to us is that we have to shut up and take what they decide we need.

Radical? Yep. I think it's called "voting"! WE do have power; WE have the power of the ballot.

Thoughts? I'm wearing my armor, so potshots are fine...just convince me why voting against what "they" say we must have is wrong this time. A good throwdown at the ballot box could be just what 'they' need to allow US to get involved in the actual planning stages of spending OUR money.

Old -- are you suggesting we vote "no" no matter what?

Hmm. After giving this whole concept--of a MAPS III, w/o much (any?) "real" citizen input, I have a radical idea. Let's just vote against it. Do WE (as citizens) have the nerve to tell those "elected to represent us" that WE want more of a say in how 'they' spend OUR money???

Yes, it is a radical idea. I know I will catch heat for it....but I am a tired citizen. I'm tired of a few taking advantage of their unique positions of power, and using OUR money to do it no less, to cram things down our throats when the only 'advantage' to us is that we have to shut up and take what they decide we need.

Radical? Yep. I think it's called "voting"! WE do have power; WE have the power of the ballot.

Thoughts? I'm wearing my armor, so potshots are fine...just convince me why voting against what "they" say we must have is wrong this time. A good throwdown at the ballot box could be just what 'they' need to allow US to get involved in the actual planning stages of spending OUR money.

Quite frankly old okie, the original MAPS was a 'behind the closed doors' concept, it was passed and no one is complaining. It got our city out of the "Detroit of the southwest" era, and downtown OKC is a place that many people love to visit.

What the leaders of OKC have "crammed down our throats" is far better than what most other cities in the country ask their citizens for, and they ask for much more than a one cent sales tax. If you call a better quality of life and better schools something that is getting crammed down our throats I am not one to argue.

That being said, I agree that the public should be more involved. But voting "NO" isn't a solution of any kind if you are that intent on getting your voice heard. Call your councilman. Write or call the mayor. Get yourself involved early in the process and let them know you want to be involved.

Creating an "US vs. THEM" mentality isn't moving us forward at all. It just isn't. Speaking of which, what do YOU people want to see as a part of MAPS 3? Let's here some ideas. You seem to be career urban designers and planners. Come on, start pitching.

Sometimes the hardest thing is just to get to work. After slogging through so many ideas and conflict, it does sometimes feel very hard to continue. Continue we must, though. The people around here and the people in the closed rooms all want our fair town to be more livable and something we are proud of. We have seen our town go from the place to get away from to one where people are actually wanting to visit, such is the progress we have made. Progress occasionally an ugly production but is now quite tasty on our grills.
So many competing ideas and desires, it is inevitable that some will be happy, others not so. We have to keep our eyes on the ball and keep on.
My idea is one that might appeal to our less adventurist spirit and still push the ball up the mountain.
The boulevard that will replace I-40 is not currently financed or final design in place. I have never liked the idea of any kind of division south of the tube(?). I would like that boulevard to go subterranean a block or two west of the park. Due south of the tube, have a large underground parking facility directly under the new urban park. Get the size of the park right with us erring on the large size. We can always go back and encroach on the park if we have to. If we have the budget in place, we will be able to do that kind of scheme and not have to settle for just another street, however attractive.
I have no idea if such a plan would devour the entire M3 budget, but I imagine not. Take the excess funds and invest safely and wisely and advertise that it will be a down payment on M4, if the public desires.
Those are the two most pressing issues at this time and gives us a bit of breathing space as taxpayers in these uncertain times. It also maintains our new spirit of investing in ourselves.
Maps has helped us change from OKC69- nothing to do round here but bitch bout nothing to do round here to OKC09- lots to do round here but more to do and where to begin? A huge and delightful difference...
My 2pence...

Maps I and II were very beneficial to many, as are the FC renovations.

If MIII is any less beneficial to the masses, then while I don't get am individual vote, living outside the boundaries as I do, I'll have no tears if it is rejected as a wake up call to the leadership who advance something that benefits only a handful of folks.

Quite frankly old okie, the original MAPS was a 'behind the closed doors' concept, it was passed and no one is complaining. It got our city out of the "Detroit of the southwest" era, and downtown OKC is a place that many people love to visit.

What the leaders of OKC have "crammed down our throats" is far better than what most other cities in the country ask their citizens for, and they ask for much more than a one cent sales tax. If you call a better quality of life and better schools something that is getting crammed down our throats I am not one to argue.

That being said, I agree that the public should be more involved. But voting "NO" isn't a solution of any kind if you are that intent on getting your voice heard. Call your councilman. Write or call the mayor. Get yourself involved early in the process and let them know you want to be involved.

Creating an "US vs. THEM" mentality isn't moving us forward at all. It just isn't. Speaking of which, what do YOU people want to see as a part of MAPS 3? Let's here some ideas. You seem to be career urban designers and planners. Come on, start pitching.
I agree with this. Ron Norick was certain pro-active in the original MAPS and I don't think I'm hearing anyone complain about the outcome. I admit to being rather passive about the decision making process ... largely because I lack the vision to think that I know what is best for everyone. The concepts presented earlier by Mayor Cornett struck me positively, and it really doesn't matter to me whether landowners and developers around and/or in the project make a ****load of money -- in fact, I hope that they do. That would be good for everyone, not just them.

It does matter to me that the concepts are aggressively pursued and not sat on ala a lot of the Bricktown properties.

In the main, it strikes me that our city leaders have done very well for the citizens from Ron Norick forward. Mayor Coats meant well but he got stuck in the oil bust crack and that wasn't his fault.

Creating an "US vs. THEM" mentality isn't moving us forward at all. It just isn't.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

I do an open mind about M3; I supported M1 & M2. And yes, they have paid off. Yet, when I think about what OKC needs to advance itself as a desirable city--as in business development, tourism (which is always a plus), and quality of living, I see that we have many gaps that aren't being addressed, at least as far as I can see.

To wit: we need sidewalks! Bike trails--not just "take your chance" riding on streets w/cars. Hefner is great; it isn't enough. Streets! Good grief, one can't drive anywhere here but what the washboard streets nearly destroy the vehicle. Trees? Parks? Love 'em! But johnson grass 4' feet tall on "empty lots"? Yuck. We need "curb appeal" in OKC. So you have a great arena and all around the place, for folks coming and going to it, it looks like some over-grown weed lot? What advantage is that? Yes, I know we have "codes"; I've read most of them (really!), but we don't have enough enforcement people. Those we have are great; they do wonderfully well, but just a few can't do it all. And what's with all the abandoned, boarded up, run-down disgusting buildings around? Downtown is full of them; they continue into the "rings" around downtown. I've been here 40 years; some of those buildings were boarded up and abandoned when I first came here. Maybe it's time we put our penny taxes to work doing some "cleanup."

The fair grounds have been improved--sort of. The buildings are nice; the parking is disgraceful. How much could asphalt cost to cover all of the parking lots? Bricktown? Won't go there; just drive through. Parking! Why can't we have SAFE parking? Oh wait, that requires police protection! Don't get me started on THAT issue! In our neighborhood, residents often wait up to an hour or more to get police to show up.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be have M3 be for a "city improvement" campaign. I don't have a problem w/adding some transit for downtowners, I'm okay w/that--it goes back to the lack of parking. How and why is it that the bus station has to be located downtown? [Not the city bus station; the Greyhound station.] Why do we have to have HUGE buses? Why not smaller, more fuel-efficient buses, more of them, and more routes, running more often? Light rail? Oh please! We can't even get that beautiful art deco train station looking like anything except an eye-sore! Why not take M3 money and fix it up? Oh wait, does the "wrong" person own that one? I don't know; it just looks like it.

And for heaven's sake, quit using "for the children" as some mantra to get support! It was fine for M1 & M2, but give it a rest. How about "for the people" (that term includes ALL of us--or can we not be "inclusive")?

Creating an "US vs. THEM" mentality isn't moving us forward at all. It just isn't.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

It remains to be seen whether that mentality might be justified. If Maps III comes out and it is limited to downtown projects, e.g., a new convention center and subsidizing residential development in the core to shore area, I think an "us v. them" mentality might actually be justified as we'd, again be in the business of subsidizing development for the top 1% in the city to have a cool place to live and for the well-connected developers of that area to make a mint in the process.

On the other hand, if we do something for downtown and something for the rest of the city, like city-wide bike trails and/or public transit upgrades, then you're absolutely right.

Maps I made downtown OKC a great place to live/work/play (mostly the last two). Maps II was something everyone could get behind because it indirectly benefits everyone in the city. If Maps III is all about a convention center and a Nichols Hills South, then again, good luck, you'll need it.

People will only subject themselves to a tax if they think they can derive some direct benefit from that tax. If the city doesn't provide that, expect everyone to act in their own best interest.

To wit: we need sidewalks!

We're getting some; the 2007 General Obligation Bond issue provides $25.6 million for sidewalks, which will construct approximately 160 miles' worth. (The ballot information, still up at okc.gov, has sidewalks and trails lumped together, to the tune of 350 miles; the figure I'm reporting comes from a status report posted last July, since removed from the site.)

We're getting some; the 2007 General Obligation Bond issue provides $25.6 million for sidewalks, which will construct approximately 160 miles' worth. (The ballot information, still up at okc.gov, has sidewalks and trails lumped together, to the tune of 350 miles; the figure I'm reporting comes from a status report posted last July, since removed from the site.)

Wonder if they will be along all the major streets [Penn, May, Western, etc.] for the FULL length of the streets...or just a "here and there" approach? Is there any place that actually shows the plans?

Sidewalks were to be built on all of Proposition 1 projects (Streets). Any resurfacing project in a neighborhood will get an accessible path on at least one side of the street. If it's an historic neighborhood with existing sidewalk, it'll be on both sides if the budget allows, and only to meet ADA. The Reconstruction projects (Part C of Prop. 1), were mainly streetscape-type projects, which include sidewalks for ADA accessible paths. Widening projects were to include sidewalk on one side of the street, but are being designed for both sides should funding and space allow.

Click on each Section for a description of what is to be included: The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election (http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007)

Former Mayor Ron Norick discusses how current MAPS proposal differs from first | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4385/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

I love people that complain about the city not being pedestrian friendly and then in the same voice complain about the parking in Bricktown. Bricktown has plenty of parking, and a ton of parking adjacent to it. Not only that but it is the most pedestrian friendly place in the city. And don't tell me it isn't "safe". There is a constant police presence in B-town and cameras on every corner. You have to walk to get to places in B-town, isn't that what all of you urban utopia people want?

Doesn't the French Quarter close many of the traffic thoroughfares in the evenings? That might be an idea for Bricktown.

Doesn't the French Quarter close many of the traffic thoroughfares in the evenings? That might be an idea for Bricktown.

Interesting thought... the French Quarter does have smaller street widths though. But I like your thought.

I love people that complain about the city not being pedestrian friendly and then in the same voice complain about the parking in Bricktown. Bricktown has plenty of parking, and a ton of parking adjacent to it. Not only that but it is the most pedestrian friendly place in the city. And don't tell me it isn't "safe". There is a constant police presence in B-town and cameras on every corner. You have to walk to get to places in B-town, isn't that what all of you urban utopia people want?

Well, the problem is, not enough people live in the immediate area to avoid the need for parking. People who live outside the core need to drive in if they want to enjoy the area, therefore, we need to work on overall walkability, especially from parking lot to commercial area. For example, Main Street is quite dark and seems imposing - perception is a key in many issues. As much as we can tell people it's ok, they won't believe it. They won't go experience it if we don't work on the visual aspect in order to alter their perceptions. Seeing is believing...

If NYC can close streets in Times Square it isn't going to hurt to close Sheridan in the evenings in Bricktown. I know that on some special events (New Years Eve, Mardi Gras, Halloween, ROT Rally and a few others) they close the portion of Sixth Street near the bars in Austin.