I knew there were multiple MAPS 3 threads and didn't know which one to put it in so I thought it would be a good idea to create its own.

MAPS 3 proposals almost ready for Oklahoma voters

LIKELY PROJECTS INCLUDE PUBLIC TRANSIT, CONVENTION CENTER AND DOWNTOWN PARK
BY BRYAN DEAN
Published: September 14, 2009

Voters should get their first look at the city’s MAPS 3 proposal within two weeks, Mayor Mick Cornett said.

Oklahoma City residents likely will get to vote on the proposal in December. The proposal will include public transit improvements, a new convention center and a large downtown park, Cornett said.

"I expect there to be more projects, but the bulk of it is going to be those three,” he said.

"I don’t think we’re going to stray too far from what most people would consider the MAPS brand with capital projects and a tax over a specific length of time. But the city is a different place now, and I think the proposal will reflect the changes the city has made.”

Whether those transit improvements will include better bus service, light rail, a modern streetcar or some combination of the three will be among the details city officials release at a news conference within two weeks, Cornett said. The cost of the proposal and length of the sales tax also will be announced.

Former mayor agrees
Former Mayor Ron Norick, who led the campaign for the original MAPS projects, said all three of the expected MAPS 3 projects make sense as a next step for downtown.

Norick said he tried to get a rail system included in the original MAPS and sees real possibility in improved transit. He also blessed a new convention center, as the Cox Convention Center will be more than 40 years old by the time the new one would open.

Norick said the new Interstate 40 Crosstown Expressway will leave a large open space south of downtown, and a large park will be a much better welcome to the city for visitors than empty lots.

"The city can either go forwards or backwards, but it can’t stay still,” Norick said. "You’ve got to keep moving forward.”

Cornett said the city council must call for a vote by Oct. 6 to get MAPS 3 on the December ballot.

City officials began discussing a follow-up to MAPS and MAPS for Kids this year. Cornett first surveyed city residents on the Internet, but MAPS 3 was put on hold when the city got the chance to lure the NBA to town.

Cornett has previously said Ford Center improvements would likely have been included in MAPS 3, but the entire plan wasn’t ready in time to go on the ballot last spring when the Seattle SuperSonics franchise was considering a move to Oklahoma City.

City officials decided to put the $120 million Ford Center improvements to a vote last March, easily winning voter approval and bringing the Oklahoma City Thunder to the downtown arena.

Economic boom
The original Metropolitan Area Projects passed in 1993. The five-year, 1-cent sales tax and a six month extension raised more than $360 million that paid for the Ford Center, the AT&T Bricktown Ballpark, the Bricktown Canal, the Ron Norick Downtown Library and several other capital projects that sparked hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment and an economic boom in downtown.

MAPS for KIDS passed in 2001, raising nearly $700 million to renovate or rebuild every school in the Oklahoma City School District and for capital projects at the suburban districts with schools inside city limits.

The 1-cent Ford Center tax began Jan. 1 as the MAPS for KIDS tax expired. A December vote would allow the city to keep the sales tax rate unchanged and begin collecting money for MAPS 3 when the Ford Center tax expires in March.

Cornett said sagging sales tax revenues have had some effect on MAPS 3 discussions but likely won’t be a problem because the tax will be collected over a number of years.

"When you are looking at expected revenue over several years, it’s fairly predictable,” he said. "We are very mindful of doing everything we can to make sure we have enough money to do the projects at the level that the people are going to expect.”

Given the success of MAPS and MAPS for Kids, Cornett knows those expectations are high. He said any projects included will have to have a transformative effect on the city.

"MAPS is not about the ordinary,” Cornett said. "It’s about economic development and quality of life.”

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/maps-3-proposals-almost-ready-for-oklahoma-voters/article/3400807)

Methinks this proposal may have the toughest sledding of them all....think there's a certain degree of "MAPS fatigue," if that makes sense...think there comes a point where people may want a break...not an indictment of the project, just a sense of how people might be thinking right now....

I personally wonder if a separate issue just for a new Convention Center wouldn't have been a better idea....the notion of considerable tax monies going into (for example) a downtown park area for a very narrow segment of the broader population that will pay for it may raise some eyebrows.....just sayin'....

I haven't seen any sign of "MAPS fatigue". No one I have spoken with has indicated anything of the sort. I think it's an OKCTalk thing. Given the success of the first 2 MAPS projects, and the Ford Center vote, I think people will be happy to continue the current level of taxes so that they can see continued success. If they had passed the Ford Center tax and the NBA hadn't come to town, I think things would be different. But so far, every MAPS vote has seen a tremendous positive impact on the city.

Methinks this proposal may have the toughest sledding of them all....think there's a certain degree of "MAPS fatigue," if that makes sense...think there comes a point where people may want a break...not an indictment of the project, just a sense of how people might be thinking right now....

I personally wonder if a separate issue just for a new Convention Center wouldn't have been a better idea....the notion of considerable tax monies going into (for example) a downtown park area for a very narrow segment of the broader population that will pay for it may raise some eyebrows.....just sayin'....

The downtown park is questionable at best. Its main purpose seems to be to enhance property values an property qualities so that private developers can make a mint by selling overpriced condos. I'm not real excited about that. I might even vote against the park.

I'll vote for the other two projects though.

I agree with hoya. You don't hear people saying, man that extra penny I'm paying on the dollar is killing me, I don't want this city to improve....

I agree with hoya. You don't hear people saying, man that extra penny I'm paying on the dollar is killing me, I don't want this city to improve....

Yeah, that's always the philosophy of sales taxation - its just one more penny on the dollar - but I also hear a lot of folks who absolutely do recognize that taxes are about to expire, and they're ready for a break. The flipside is also true - if that penny is so trivial, then the city can do without it. I'm just saying, and I think TPTB would agree, that there is a waning amount of "mileage" available under the MAPS banner, particularly in these uneasy economic times.

Does anyone know what is to become of the Myriad/Cox Convention Center if the new convention center passes? As I recall, we spent no small amount of money remodeling and expanding the north side of the Myriad just a few years ago, so I would assume we're not tearing it down.

Midtowner, do you happen to know if the proposals will be "line-itemed" in that way such that you could selectively vote against one while supporting the other(s)? A new convention center is a pretty easy sell in my mind, but I have reservations similar to yours regarding the park. I need to see a broad integration and payment plan for a transit system, too...very little interest in extending taxes to support a downtown-centric transit system.

I think those features will be the problems MAPS3 will have to overcome - the ballpark and the Ford Center were percieved as having tangible, city-wide benefit, but the park and transit system might need very specific tailoring to enjoy the same perception.

The downtown park is questionable at best. Its main purpose seems to be to enhance property values an property qualities so that private developers can make a mint by selling overpriced condos. I'm not real excited about that. I might even vote against the park.

I'll vote for the other two projects though.

I don't think this package is going to us a la carte. The first MAPS wasn't proposed that way.

I don't think this package is going to us a la carte. The first MAPS wasn't proposed that way.

This has always been the genius of MAPS: If you want one of the projects completed, you vote yes on all of them as a package deal. As long as there is at least one project that each person cares enough about, then people will vote yes.

MAPS is definitely the best penny-on-the-dollar that I've ever spent.

If its all-or-nothing, I'll probably have to vote no because two of the three listed projects are things that benefit downtown exclusively, eg transit and park. If the good folks that want to live downtown would like those things, then perhaps something like a TIFD or kindred concepts could be considered.

I agree with you on the park, but the transit will be downtown at first, and will then expand throughout the city in different forms from streetcar to light rail to commuter rail. It just has to have local funding for the national funding to kick in.

It is definitely debatable whether the park exclusively benefits downtown. If done properly, an iconic park can define the city. It is a gathering place for the whole city and a place that people imagine when they think of the city.

Consider 25-acre Millennium Park in Chicago, which is often given as an example of what C2S park could be like. It was conceived of in the late 1990s, it opened in 2004, and it has already become a major defining aspect of living, visiting, and imagining Chicago.

http://www.millenniumpark.org/images/artarch_intro.jpg

It remains to be seen what type of transit program they will propose for MAPS3. We may see funding for north/south commuter lines, the east west commuter line to Tinker that the City Council voted on today (they voted to pay for a share of the cost if a TIGER grant is received), or an urban streetcar that would enhance the core.

The major problem for MAPS being downtown focused is that it is hard for most residents to see that what benefits the core benefits the entire city. On the other hand, if we had a MAPS of this sort that was NOT downtown focused, it would not work properly to drive investment.

Think of downtown as an injection site: that's where the shot goes into the vein, but from there it spreads throughout the entire body. And we need to keep getting shots if we want to continue speeding our city's maturity.

If done properly. The size of park they are wanting is too small to have an impact on the entire city. It needs to be at least 4 times bigger. The drawings from Hargraeves and Associates makes it look like a small little park that could not host any events for the city.

I agree, if the heart of your city is healthy, then the rest of the body of your city will be too.

Why are you people acting so suprised on this??? This issue has been beaten to death and solid evidence already exists about the park and mass transit. SoonerDave and Shane, I highly recommend you read the other main threads on MAPS 3 and Mass Transit (the MTP project), and perhaps even attend the FREE MTP Mass Transit event on Thursday night at the Skirvin. These threads and meeting will keep you up to date.

There is no city that starts mass transit out in the burbs and then later downtown, it always starts from the CORE and works its way out. We'd be stupid to put a mass transit system out on the far west end of Expressway or Memorial Rd. and then later expand it to the rest of the City. Downtown is the HEART and CENTER (even geographically for our city) of every City. When you bring guests from out of town, you don't (well maybe you do), but most people don't take them to Texas Roadhouse on Memorial Rd., they take them to DOWNTOWN, to Bricktown, Arts Museum, National Memorial, Ford Center, canal, etc. Again, MAPS IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE for the City, not suburban bedroom communities. When Downtown benefits, everyone in the metro benefits whether they realize it or not.

Why are you people acting so suprised on this??? This issue has been beaten to death and solid evidence already exists about the park and mass transit. SoonerDave and Shane, I highly recommend you read the other main threads on MAPS 3 and Mass Transit (the MTP project), and perhaps even attend the FREE MTP Mass Transit event on Thursday night at the Skirvin. These threads and meeting will keep you up to date.

There is no city that starts mass transit out in the burbs and then later downtown, it always starts from the CORE and works its way out. We'd be stupid to put a mass transit system out on the far west end of Expressway or Memorial Rd. and then later expand it to the rest of the City. Downtown is the HEART and CENTER (even geographically for our city) of every City. When you bring guests from out of town, you don't (well maybe you do), but most people don't take them to Texas Roadhouse on Memorial Rd., they take them to DOWNTOWN, to Bricktown, Arts Museum, National Memorial, Ford Center, canal, etc. Again, MAPS IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE for the City, not suburban bedroom communities. When Downtown benefits, everyone in the metro benefits whether they realize it or not.

Very well stated. This is a concept Tulsa's suburban residents fail to understand. Thank God most of our suburbanites in OKC do.

Why are you people acting so suprised on this??? This issue has been beaten to death and solid evidence already exists about the park and mass transit. ...When Downtown benefits, everyone in the metro benefits whether they realize it or not.

Metro, you're talking to someone who enthusiastically supported the original MAPS projects and is delighted to see what has sprung from them. Those projects - the ballpark, the museum, the Ford Center - are all issues that benefitted not just downtown, and not just the suburbs, but I would contend the broader view of Oklahoma.

Now, however, we're talking about a park and a downtown-focused transit system. I understand that you start at the center of a city when contemplating mass transit, but I also understand that the core user base that will enjoy it ought to have an expectation of bearing the primary responsibility to pay for it, regardless of the details. That's why these two components have me, at best, uncertain whether I will support them.

As far as the details go, Metro, it just isn't possible for me to attend many of those meetings, even the evening ones, due to family and other responsibilities.

Metro, you bring a lot of good insight here in many discussions, but with all the respect I can offer you, please be cautious when it could be argued that the necessary implication of disagreement with issues like this could only arise out of ignorance. I understand the pros and cons of mass transit, and I also understand OKC's isn't the best. But I am also wary of a city-wide tax to fund it, or a park that, as Midtowner has already stated, seems to serve a very local property appreciation purpose as much or more than anything else. If there are those who want downtown to flourish as an urban living area, not just as an entertainment district, then there are myriad issues that come before putting up a park, eg the long-term retail, grocery, day-to-day stuff that's boring, but necessary. Asking the entire city to subsidize that is, to me, questionable at best, even understanding the "quality of life" issues the park aspires to accomodate.

Blessings,
soonerdave

If its all-or-nothing, I'll probably have to vote no because two of the three listed projects are things that benefit downtown exclusively, eg transit and park. If the good folks that want to live downtown would like those things, then perhaps something like a TIFD or kindred concepts could be considered.

The developers who stand to directly benefit should pony up that money. Even though I office downtown, I can't in good conscience ask people to pay for things which won't benefit them. The convention center would be a boon for the whole city though. It'd be a shame if they lost this thing because they log rolled a lot of projects into one question.

I think its funny how people think that "just because I am not going to use it means it's not going to benefit ME, so I'm going to vote against it." ME, ME, ME......

Most people in OKC haven't gone to Bricktown Ballpark, but the park benefits everyone. Most people in OKC haven't gone on a canal boat ride, but the canal benefits everyone. Most people in OKC haven't gone to a Thunder NBA game, but the team and the improvements to the arena benefits everyone. These things are being paid for by things people purchase in OKC, not Edmond, Norman or Midwest City, but all those communities benefit by the passage of the other MAPS programs.

1) By passing the MAPS programs, the people of OKC got away from the habit of using our tax money to give to corporations to build facilities and plants, some of which have either closed or were never built in the winning cities.

2) OKC showed the rest of the country that we love our city and are willing to invest IN OUR CITY to improve our quality of lives, rather than giving all our money to AA, Boeing, Micron Technology or United Airlines. The city has benefitted by being the recipient of such things as additional NCAA regional events, the Big 12 tourney, numerous conventions and events, unanticipated recognition as being one of the premier rowing locales in the country. More events mean more hotel/motel tax, more sales tax revenue and more potential for outside investment.

3) A new convention center will take advantage of the new reality that corporate events in "resort" locations such as Miami or Vegas are unnecessary boondoggles while holding conventions and events in other cities shows a more businesslike intention.

4) Major national publications now give us positive press and show the positive outlook and support our citizens have in our city. MAPS for Kids showed we were willing to invest $ hundreds of millions in our schools and our children. People are seeing OKC with an open mind and as a good place to raise a family. We are losing our "cow town" reputation.

5) MAPS projects will result in well over $2 billion in private development around downtown. The Devon Tower will only add to the new image that "downtown will be the place to work and live" and once the economy turns up a bit more and credit is available, the suburbs will not be the only choice for a quality life.

Everyone in OKC benefits by the additional tax revenue OKC will receive, the additional things for visitors to do, the additional facilities and improvements the resulting hotel/motel tax revenue will bring. Investment turns over several times so its not a one time, one out thing. Understand that MAPS is an INVESTMENT. Its not putting cash in everyone's wallet, but it has improved the quality of our lives in OKC.

As for the transit portion of Maps3.....I posted a couple of months ago about the need for all transit in the metro area to be included in any long-term transit plan. The city needs the participation of the suburban communities in order to avoid problems other cities face as they attempt start-ups and expansion of their light rail systems. My post back in July told the story of DART in the Dallas metroplex and linked to several good articles relating to the need for a spread out metro (like our own) to consolidate all transit operations and allow for a free-flow of public transport from all areas of the metro to the city center. And this can begin NOW with a revamped bus service and an all-new metro transit authority should be given the mission to drastically improve service and begin to build the trust that will allow them to competently oversee a light-rail system in the metro.

The momentum of OKC must continue! All this hard work trying to make the city a better place for it's inhabitants should not stop. A new central park in the Core to Shore would "benefit" the entire city because this would be public space and whomever wants to use the park is able to do it. This would also clear a huge swath of "ghetto" and dilapidated skid row houses and businesses and and make a clear canvass for Core to Shore to redevelop that area. Dallas just annouced they are building a 8 acre urban park in Downtown Dallas at a price of $85 million dollars. It is to be built above the Woodall Rodgers Freeway. This should be interesting?? The last thing OKC needs is to grow apathetic and rest on it's laurels and not continue to strive to be the best it is able to be.

mugofbeer

Here's my issue, mug. The line of thinking you laid out is precisely why the original MAPS passed. Its why I supported it. Clearly, the Ford Center, the Ballpark, provide an broad, intangible benefit. I don't know that there's much of a contrary argument.

The problem, though is the same line of thinking is being used to justify everything. I have a very tough time seeing the same kind of impact in the intangible value of OKC because downtown has a park. I have a much less difficult time in seeing the potential benefit for downtown mass transit, and the least difficulty in seeing the benefit of a convention center.

We have to allow for the reality that some people are going to stop checking the "yes" box merely because someone says "oh, its MAPS, its INVESTMENT, so it must be a good thing") (even when its written in all-caps by someone) :). More people are going to need more specific persuasion than just hyperbole, eg "lets be a first class city, lets not stop the momentum, lets seize the day" etc etc etc.

You start to realize incremental resistance to things when the projects become more granular. A downtown park is [I]drastically more granular than a convention center. Do the park plans include set-asides for increased police patrols and security? Or is that going to come out of the city's general operating budget? How about annual maintenance? Yeah, those things aren't sexy, but they are real things to consider.

This issue of granularity isn't lost on the MAPS folks, because I was targeted for a half-hour long survey on my reaction to how these projects were prospectively packaged; "x" amount of tax for "y" years to generate "z" dollars for "xxx" super duper thing - all cleverly worded to make me feel guilty if I didn't support it, with leading questions like "Do you support this positive investment in the future of OKC for our children" (or words to that effect), necessarily implying you hate kids AND OKC if you oppose it.

We are in an economically volatile time, and with the very real prospect of astonishing new taxation levels from the federal government, I (and I believe many others) are very, very wary of extending taxation that is already set to expire.

MAPS
MAPS for Kids
MAPS for Richie Rich & His New Ball
MAPS for Mayors
(but hey, there's a train you can play on if you wanna)

Work for it if ya want it, work agin it if ya don't. May the more energetic side prevail.

Those of you who are arguing for a massive, citywide transit improvement are going to be impossible to please, because that kind of solution is not politically palatable right now. Not yet.

Please rethink your positions. We need to start to build a flexible and expandable system, and we need it to succeed.

The worst things we can do are:

1. Nothing
2. Something that's too big and fails

Let's support this first-class transit element, use it, then expand it according to need and demand. It CAN happen.

I assure you, if you vote against this modest transit improvement and MAPS III fails, we will never have a citywide transit solution. Never.

How can you guys say a downtown park won't benefit all of the city? I mean, when I think of downtown, one of the first things I think of is the Myriad Gardens. Who hasn't been to the Myriad Botanical Gardens? Think of all of the events held there? 4th of July events, the Arts Festival, Shakespere in the Park, the Crystal Bridge....all attract people from all over the city. This would just build on that. And for goodness sakes, concerning dollar amount, the downtown park will be a small fraction of the entire project. The convention center and transit will be larger chunks.

Any beautification to downtown OKC benefits the entire city, and makes this a better place to live. I see this downtown park as being a place similar to the Myriad Gardens, where people from "the entire" city come for events.

and with the very real prospect of astonishing new taxation levels from the federal government

This isn't supported by fact. This is the kind of crap that Glenn Beck is peddling. There are no "astonishing" new increases planned.

Get a grip.

mugofbeer

Here's my issue, mug. The line of thinking you laid out is precisely why the original MAPS passed. Its why I supported it. Clearly, the Ford Center, the Ballpark, provide an broad, intangible benefit. I don't know that there's much of a contrary argument.

The problem, though is the same line of thinking is being used to justify everything. I have a very tough time seeing the same kind of impact in the intangible value of OKC because downtown has a park. I have a much less difficult time in seeing the potential benefit for downtown mass transit, and the least difficulty in seeing the benefit of a convention center.

The point I was trying to convey is that a lot of people have real trouble trying to understand the benefits of these programs because they say "they won't use it so why should they vote for it?" I am trying to convey the idea that MAPS is a long-term investment. The benefits to OKC on the other MAPS projects were, luckily, pretty immediate - so there was some gratification that came from them. I have seen comments on the DOK site and have heard people actually say words to the effect that MAPS didn't put money in their pockets or get them a better job so they don't see the good MAPS did. These MAPS projects will be LONG TERM investments and won't see great return for several years - kind of like the money used to dam up the river. 20 years from now, everyone will laud the foresight OKC voters had rather than criticize because we kind of jumped the gun and allowed people to swim in it.



We have to allow for the reality that some people are going to stop checking the "yes" box merely because someone says "oh, its MAPS, its INVESTMENT, so it must be a good thing") (even when its written in all-caps by someone) :).

You start to realize incremental resistance to things when the projects become more granular. A downtown park is [I]drastically more granular than a convention center. Do the park plans include set-asides for increased police patrols and security? Or is that going to come out of the city's general operating budget? How about annual maintenance? Yeah, those things aren't sexy, but they are real things to consider.

I too think December is a bit too soon. I would rather they shoot for next spring or summer to let the economy improve some. The questions you ask are valid and the city should have to answer them before a vote. No one will use a park if people don't think its safe. The park is simply a quality-of-life issue. Its a central focal point for OKC. It has the potential, if done right, if tied directly into the river park system, if proper development is encouraged around it, to be OKC's "Gateway Arch" or "Seattle Observation Tower." We took the river bottom and turned it into a jewel.


This issue of granularity isn't lost on the MAPS folks, because I was targeted for a half-hour long survey on my reaction to how these projects were prospectively packaged; "x" amount of tax for "y" years to generate "z" dollars for "xxx" super duper thing - all cleverly worded to make me feel guilty if I didn't support it, with leading questions like "Do you support this positive investment in the future of OKC for our children" (or words to that effect), necessarily implying you hate kids AND OKC if you oppose it.

I don't think granularity had anything to do with it. I think putting a positive spin on it was their intention. Why put anything in that gives the air of doubt?


We are in an economically volatile time, and with the very real prospect of astonishing new taxation levels from the federal government, I (and I believe many others) are very, very wary of extending taxation that is already set to expire.

100% agreed but the $20 or so this will cost every taxpayer in OKC isn't going to make or break anyone. As I said above, I would rather see them put the vote off until next year rather than this year. People are very concerned about the economy, concerned about what the deficits are going to do to inflation and concerned about the destruction of their health care. They may be too concerned to vote + on MAPS 3 unless the city does a magnificent sales job.

Here's my issue, mug. The line of thinking you laid out is precisely why the original MAPS passed. Its why I supported it. Clearly, the Ford Center, the Ballpark, provide an broad, intangible benefit. I don't know that there's much of a contrary argument.

Again, look at the Myriad Botanical Gardens.



You start to realize incremental resistance to things when the projects become more granular. A downtown park is drastically more granular than a convention center. Do the park plans include set-asides for increased police patrols and security? Or is that going to come out of the city's general operating budget? How about annual maintenance? Yeah, those things aren't sexy, but they are real things to consider.

Will be just like Bricktown.....parks dept maintains the gardens on the Bricktown canal and the OKC police provides security.


We are in an economically volatile time, and with the very real prospect of astonishing new taxation levels from the federal government, I (and I believe many others) are very, very wary of extending taxation that is already set to expire.

I don't think we should base decisions that could be detrimental to our city on what the federal government is doing. This taxation has been going on for over 16 years.....why stop it if it's working? Not all taxes are a bad thing. All of the MAPS taxes have been great for our city.

I don't think we should base decisions that could be detrimental to our city on what the federal government is doing. This taxation has been going on for over 16 years.....why stop it if it's working? Not all taxes are a bad thing. All of the MAPS taxes have been great for our city.

I'm glad you said this. I used to be a person who thought any tax was a bad tax. Living in DFW, I saw tax revenue misspent over and over and over again but still that metro area thrives.

Living in Denver I saw tax revenue spent on wonderful libraries, fantastic recreaction centers, parks that are something to behold on warm, sunny weekends. Denver has fantastic museums, botanical gardens, and sports facitlities 2nd only to a few - quite good. Denver generally spends its tax money wisely. Not perfect but far better than Dallas and far better than OKC USED to spend it. I think OKC has done a remarkable job with the MAPS programs. There have been some pitfalls and some very lucky situations but I think our city has the right idea now.

I have seen comments on the DOK site and have heard people actually say words to the effect that MAPS didn't put money in their pockets or get them a better job so they don't see the good MAPS did.

Why do people only think about what they can get out of something, or how they can line their wallets??? I agree...ME....ME...ME. Well, the benefit you get out of these improvements are a nicer city to live in, and better quality of life. Before MAPS I, our city was a dump, and because of MAPS I, our city has drastically improved in terms of quality of life, but we still have a ways to go.


I too think December is a bit too soon. I would rather they shoot for next spring or summer to let the economy improve some.

The problem is then the current penny sales tax will expire, and the opponents will make MAPS 3 look like a tax increase. If they just extend the current tax, they can promote it by saying "it won't raise your taxes"

I think OKC has done a remarkable job with the MAPS programs.

For $360 million in MAPS I, we got a heck of a deal.

That would have built 1/4 of Jerry Jones Death Star in Arlington!

The developers who stand to directly benefit should pony up that money. Even though I office downtown, I can't in good conscience ask people to pay for things which won't benefit them. The convention center would be a boon for the whole city though. It'd be a shame if they lost this thing because they log rolled a lot of projects into one question.

We ask people to pay for schools they don't send their children to ALL the time. I don't use social security. I don't send kids to schools. I don't drive on ANY of the city roads on the southside. I don't use any of those parks.

It benefits the CITY. With this logic, Mid, no rail would ever be built anywhere. Hell, no civic projects of any substantial size would be built. Did the Civic Center get MAPs money? I think it did. I bet there are plenty of people that never go to it.

Let's call a spade a spade here: we have amazing momentum, we're getting national attention, we're insulated from the recession (which is basically over now anyway), we're WAAAAAY too spread out for a "big" city and have problems with density in the core. We have very little sense of community or identity in Oklahoma City. We're forming it right now. This is the PERFECT time to keep this tax going, to continue MAJOR improvements, to change the face of our city.

And some of you want to throw on the brakes right as we're almost to the top of the hill. You guys want to stop at the Grand Canyon when Wallyworld is just down the road a piece.

Oh well. Des Moines is nice this time of year, I hear...

I've seen the renderings of the park. It certainly isn't big. It certainly isn't world class. It seems to me that it's a nice green space which will be surrounded by private condos which will be developed in the imagination-bereft/overpriced style of our present Bricktown/Deep Deuce projects. My trouble is that the current renderings don't show much vision or leadership. What I see is a process driven by small-time real estate developers for the financial benefit of small time real estate developers on the taxpayer's dime. I'm assuming that as usual, they will again overpromise and again underperform when developing the adjacent properties.

Yes, the MAPS I projects were great. This isn't the same though. Nowhere close. While the transit and the convention centers are similar, the park isn't. Nowhere close. If anything, the park could and should be done with TIF money.

I'm a fan of parks. Nichols Hills has a nice park. We have nice parks all around the city and in the downtown area. I'm at the Myriad Gardens pretty frequently, but only because I only live a few blocks away and it's nicer to stroll through the park than it is to stroll down Sheridan. If this was a big 40-acre behemoth of a park, I'd be of a different opinion, but that's not the case. This is going to be *maybe* a cut above the park at Nichols Hills.

I've seen the renderings of the park. It certainly isn't big. It certainly isn't world class. It seems to me that it's a nice green space which will be surrounded by private condos which will be developed in the imagination-bereft/overpriced style of our present Bricktown/Deep Deuce projects. My trouble is that the current renderings don't show much vision or leadership. What I see is a process driven by small-time real estate developers for the financial benefit of small time real estate developers on the taxpayer's dime. I'm assuming that as usual, they will again overpromise and again underperform when developing the adjacent properties.

Yes, the MAPS I projects were great. This isn't the same though. Nowhere close. While the transit and the convention centers are similar, the park isn't. Nowhere close. If anything, the park could and should be done with TIF money.

Mid, what they have put down for the apartments/condo's surrounding the park is simply a preliminary architectural rendering. Remember the renderings for the IM Pei Plan? Those weren't final plans. Exactly what is your vision of imaginative living? The taxpayer won't be paying for the developments surrounding the park. The park is there for, among several reasons, but to be the catalyst for development and economic growth just like MAPS I and II were for the $1 billion + we have seen so far downtown. You really have to get over the fact someone is going to make a profit downtown. Thats called capitalism.

Is it capitalism or welfare for residential developers?

If the park is used properly as a community focus, a heartbeat, it will be huge, no matter the acreage.

If the park is used properly as a community focus, a heartbeat, it will be huge, no matter the acreage.

What I see from the renderings is a narrowish strip completely surrounded by brownstones and condos with zero parking for the public and a projected lack of parking for downtown into the foreseeable future because of Devon. How you see this as being any more than a taxpayer funded park primarily for the use of the surrounding private owners of real estate who will pay around $300/square foot and up for the privilege of living there.

It's a nice park, but these developers stand to make a mint so they can pay for it. I don't care if OCURA helps by acquiring blighted property. That's what it's for. But any more than that? Nuh-uh.

If this was a big 40-acre behemoth of a park, I'd be of a different opinion, but that's not the case. This is going to be *maybe* a cut above the park at Nichols Hills.

Actually, it is a 40-acre park. The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=95861), and plans are for a highly programmed and interactive park designed by one of the best firms in the world- we haven't seen final plans for the park yet. Maybe in 2 weeks we will. Also there is an underground parking area beneath the park for visitors.

Don't think of it as welfare for residential developers: think of it as a reason to develop in the first place.

Imagine a world where MAPS 3 fails: downtown would continue to grow, but nowhere near the pace that it would if we have better transit, more convention space, and a major incentive to develop south of downtown. More of the city's share of the new growth in the metro would be lost to the suburbs and unincorporated areas. Many young people will look to other metro areas that have invested in their transit and urban centers. Tax revenue growth would level off.

What I believe to be the most important reason to pass MAPS3: There is a HUGE population of young people that will overlook Oklahoma City within the next decade if we cannot continue to run full speed toward creating an urban habitat for them. The generation that is about to graduate from college (people I'm surrounded by and talk with every day) are passionate about location, and they tend to prefer an urban lifestyle for a number of reasons. If we miss out on attracting this crowd of young people, if we don't show them that OKC is progressively moving toward providing that environment, it will negate all of our accomplishments in the core so far.

Here's a brand new two block city park in St. Louis that looks really nice, and it's far smaller than what's planned for Core to Shore. Isn't the Core to Shore park supposed to be 37 acres?

Citygarden the New St. Louis Sculpture Park Opens to the Public | Art Knowledge News (http://www.artknowledgenews.com/citygarden-the-new-st-louis-sculpture-park-opens-to-the-public.html)

St. Louis Sculpture Park Opens Tomorrow - ARTINFO.com (http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/31892/st-louis-sculpture-park-opens-tomorrow/)

Do we worry about what businesses or residences are adjacent to parks in other cities? Do we worry about who made money by developing the areas adjacent or do we simply enjoy the space?

I have no connection to anyone developing any part of downtown. However, I consider the park the most important part of MAPS3. It continues the theme of the original MAPS, in transforming city spaces, in making our downtown more interesting and beautiful. Especially if the park connection to the river is eventually created, it will be an impressive addition to our downtown, IMO. We have no idea what will be built adjacent to it. All we've seen are concepts. Regardless, it seems as if people are spending too much energy wondering who's going to benefit financially from this, when the real question should be how the citizens of Oklahoma City will benefit. Most of them probably could care less who's living next door, as long as they can use it. Do I worry if someone builds a hotel next to the Ford Center and makes money by doing so? Most of those hotels built in downtown and Bricktown are national chains, and so some percentage of the profits are leaving the state. I'd rather see local developers profit and keep more of the money in state. I certainly don't have the money to develop anything, but looking at what's in the Core to Shore area now, regardless of the aesthetic and how close it is to mine, it's going to be an improvement.

This isn't supported by fact. This is the kind of crap that Glenn Beck is peddling. There are no "astonishing" new increases planned.

Get a grip.


I'm firmly gripped in reality. There is absolutely no way this administration can implement the social overhaul it has in mind without tax increases aimed precisely at the middle class. We have something on the order of $58 TRILLION on the books in unfunded liabilities. Beyond that, he will do nothing to extend or make permanent the tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2010, resulting in an automatic tax increase even if not one piece of legislation is passed. That, on top of the absolute fact of increased energy taxes to be imposed as part of the this idiotic cap-and-trade nonsense, and I have no problem whatsoever asserting that astonishing tax increases are on the way.

Before anyone goes any further, I'm not going to turn this into a political thread.

Actually, it is a 40-acre park. The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=95861), and plans are for a highly programmed and interactive park designed by one of the best firms in the world- we haven't seen final plans for the park yet. Maybe in 2 weeks we will. Also there is an underground parking area beneath the park for visitors.

Don't think of it as welfare for residential developers: think of it as a reason to develop in the first place.

Imagine a world where MAPS 3 fails: downtown would continue to grow, but nowhere near the pace that it would if we have better transit, more convention space, and a major incentive to develop south of downtown. More of the city's share of the new growth in the metro would be lost to the suburbs and unincorporated areas. Many young people will look to other metro areas that have invested in their transit and urban centers. Tax revenue growth would level off.

What I believe to be the most important reason to pass MAPS3: There is a HUGE population of young people that will overlook Oklahoma City within the next decade if we cannot continue to run full speed toward creating an urban habitat for them. The generation that is about to graduate from college (people I'm surrounded by and talk with every day) are passionate about location, and they tend to prefer an urban lifestyle for a number of reasons. If we miss out on attracting this crowd of young people, if we don't show them that OKC is progressively moving toward providing that environment, it will negate all of our accomplishments in the core so far.

But in a nutshell, Shane, you've more or less ratified the general notion Midtowner has described - you want the park to perpetuate an "urban habitat."

See, I'm part of the villany here. I live in the suburbs. I think that makes me somewhere beneath Satan on this board, on top of the fact that I'm a life-long conservative Republican (and not the slightest bit apologetic for it).
There's this notion out here that we have some sort of implicit "moral obligation" to build "urban habitats." I'm not part of that notion. Some people here are telling me that a park "benefits all of Oklahoma City," but you're saying it perpetuates the "urban habitat." If that's all its going to do, what possible incentive do I have to support it? Someone else posted in this thread that if we don't do this, downtown will "lose out to the suburbs" or words to that effect, as if there's an implicit competition at hand.

If people want to live in an "urban habitat," that's cool. I have no problem with that. But if a tax that I will be paying is being tailored to underwrite and enhance that habitat, that's a horse of a different color entirely. Funding things to encourage and perpetuate urban habitats are precisely the kinds of things TIF's are for..

I'm not saying I'm unilaterally voting "no" on MAPS3; heck, the "official" release hasn't been made yet, so to say either way would be silly. I'm willing to wait for the real details. Conceptually, though, I can say that it is frustrating that there apparently exists the real possibility that the only way I can endorse a convention center is to pay for a downtown park and transit system along with it. That's a value proposition I have to sit down and think about long and hard before I can support it. It isn't as automatic as some seem to think.

Dave, I too am a conservative republican. But I, along with many peers, want to grow up to live in an urban neighborhood. Not necessarily because of my morality but because of the daily life I imagine enjoying there.

I assert that the battle is not about urban vs suburban and should not be framed that way. Rather it is about metro area vs metro area. In order to stay competitive, okc must offer a good urban lifestyle Along with the suburban. This is why it should be an effort supported by all- let's be honest, our suburbs don't need help being more suburban, but our urbs need help being more urban. If we do not act, we risk continuing the brain drain that plaues Oklahoma. The park and other downtown improvements are vital to the future of the whole metro area because of the important role our core will play in attracting economic opportunities.

Spend some time in Bricktown on a summer's evening, and then tell me where in any part of suburban Oklahoma City you can find what you see there. You'll see people sitting outdoors at restaurants, people walking into the ballpark, people riding in the horse drawn carriages, people walking into the movie theatres, bikers riding down the streets, well dressed people going into nice restaurants and young people walking from Deep Deuce to go to the clubs. There's a hum of conversation and an air of excitement that you don't get at a mall.

Going to Millenium Park in Chicago on a warm summer evening, you see something similar: you see people of all different ethnic groups, ages, income levels enjoying the same thing. There's a festival air about the place, no matter what is going on.

MAPS started what has happened here, and increasing our public spaces, making our downtown a destination for its citizens, making it easier for our citizens to get downtown and move around is a good thing. Oklahoma City, by virtue of it's sprawl, has had very little sense of community or cohesiveness in the past, but a downtown we all can enjoy and be proud of actually begins to create that sense. It's not just about the urban, it's about community.

What I believe to be the most important reason to pass MAPS3: There is a HUGE population of young people that will overlook Oklahoma City within the next decade if we cannot continue to run full speed toward creating an urban habitat for them.

Sorry.. I'm a young professional (lawyer when I'm sworn in next week). I make more than most in my position. No way in hell could I even begin to afford the real estate prices downtown right now, let alone what developers will be charging after this stuff is built.

Maybe there'll be enough folks in my age group with trust funds, but I really doubt it. This residential development will end up being Nichols Hills South.

But Midtowner, no one but the very rich can afford to live on Central Park, and yet all sorts of people use it and enjoy it. Even if I can't afford to live on the park here, that doesn't mean I don't want it to be there to walk to or ride to. If we were going to gate it and say that only the people who live on the park can use it, like many of the private parks in London, I would definitely be opposed. But, that's not going to happen. If there are beautiful, expensive developments around the park, again ala Central Park in NYC, that will beautify the view from the park. What percentage of people in OKC would be able to live directly on the park anyway, even if they could afford it? Again, I think we need to focus on making the park what we want it to be for the local citizens and visitors to enjoy and not worry about the few hundred people who might actually end up living adjacent.

Perhaps what we need to somehow figure out how to do is what was done in Nichols Hills, where you can still buy a house for under $200,000. There, the most expensive houses are on the park, but Mr. Nichols made sure that zoning included houses of all sizes, to allow for people of many different income levels to live there. I'm not sure if you can zone for price range, since we would hope for far more density around our park than in Nichols Hills, but perhaps some provision could be made to allow for housing in different price ranges. Price would probably drop as proximity to the park lessened, but if we want to promote a walking city, what's a few blocks of walking to get to the park?

Betts, first of all, our central park is and never will be NYC's Central Park (note the caps). Ain't gonna happen. Second, the conceptual drawings show damn near suburban structures. If we know anything about OKC, we know that developers for this sort of community and the city overpromise and dramatically underdeliver, so I'm not planning on having any sort of significant density.

You can buy a condo in OKC for under $200K, but expect to have no garage and a living space about 1/2 of what you would get with a 15-minute commute. At this rate, don't expect many young people to be jumping on that bandwagon.

Throughout law school, I rented at downtown's cheapest apartment complex. Upon graduation though, I knew that if I wanted to own, downtown was way out of my league. I bought myself a very nice house just a few blocks away from the Lake Hefner Golf Course. I have a yard, a garage and a house just south of 2,000 square feet which I bought for less than half per square foot of what they're charging for even the cheapest midtown properties.

On its present course, OKC's downtown diversity will be similar to what you find in Nichols Hills. Lots of WASPs and Lebanese folks.

Midtowner - there isn't anything welfare-ish about the citizens of OKC taking an area that is blighted with rundown, boarded up houses and buildings, auto salvage yards and overgrown lots and clearing it out to make way for new development. Just as the canals, the bricktown ballpark and the Ford Center provided the impetus for private development to invest over $1 billion downtown, such a park can provide the same impetus for private re-development of the land surrounding the park. What you are saying was successful from MAPS I & II you are now calling corporate welfare.

The other thing you have to get through your head is that the architectural plans for MAPS 3 are not final. Just as with the Devon Tower and its original 1000+ hight, nothing will be final until it is built. So, if you see brownstones with no public parking, don't fret it because it probably wouldn't be built for 5-7 years anyway and the designs and final plans wouldn't be done until then. Any developer will want to wait to see what market conditions are like at a minimum 2-3 years from now before making a proposal. If market conditions show high demand for such development, high rise towers will be built. If demand is lower, it may be brownstones. Better yet, if its brownstones, then you or I may be able to buy a lot and build it.

You gotta get past the drawings they are using right now. They will change significantly over the next few years when we can all see what the market and availability of capital is.

I agree with Midtown. If you look at this video of the latest renderings for the park you can see it doesn't have any functions for the city. It is a park to be developed around and not for enjoyment of the city. The firm they hired to do the designs went a different direction than what the city needs.

Take a look at this video. It starts at 10:17.

State of Creativity (http://creativity.oeta.tv/)

Dave, I too am a conservative republican. But I, along with many peers, want to grow up to live in an urban neighborhood. Not necessarily because of my morality but because of the daily life I imagine enjoying there.

I assert that the battle is not about urban vs suburban and should not be framed that way. Rather it is about metro area vs metro area. In order to stay competitive, okc must offer a good urban lifestyle Along with the suburban. This is why it should be an effort supported by all- let's be honest, our suburbs don't need help being more suburban, but our urbs need help being more urban. If we do not act, we risk continuing the brain drain that plaues Oklahoma. The park and other downtown improvements are vital to the future of the whole metro area because of the important role our core will play in attracting economic opportunities.

I agree with this guy.

I agree with Midtown. If you look at this video of the latest renderings for the park you can see it doesn't have any functions for the city. It is a park to be developed around and not for enjoyment of the city. The firm they hired to do the designs went a different direction than what the city needs.

Take a look at this video. It starts at 10:17.

State of Creativity (http://creativity.oeta.tv/)

I went back and looked at the video and I truly don't get what you are talking about. The entire park is for functions of the city and the citizens. Exactly what is it you are thinking should be there that isn't? What I see is a pretty impressive urban park.

Yes, Midtowner, the park will have lots and lots and lots of multi-family housing around it but thats what an urban park should have. You want many many people using it which will bring many more people. On the other sides of the multi-family housing will be retail, hotels, office buildings, entertainment.

I just don't get what you all don't like about this. If it could be built exactly as advertised, that would be wonderful, but it won't be. If market conditions don't warrant 3,000 housing units nearby and demand isnt there, the housing won't be that heavy.

I'm firmly gripped in reality. There is absolutely no way this administration can implement the social overhaul it has in mind without tax increases aimed precisely at the middle class. We have something on the order of $58 TRILLION on the books in unfunded liabilities. Beyond that, he will do nothing to extend or make permanent the tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2010, resulting in an automatic tax increase even if not one piece of legislation is passed. That, on top of the absolute fact of increased energy taxes to be imposed as part of the this idiotic cap-and-trade nonsense, and I have no problem whatsoever asserting that astonishing tax increases are on the way.

Before anyone goes any further, I'm not going to turn this into a political thread.

I have no interest in turning this political either, but your 58 trillion figure is insanely overblown.

I went back and looked at the video and I truly don't get what you are talking about. The entire park is for functions of the city and the citizens. Exactly what is it you are thinking should be there that isn't? What I see is a pretty impressive urban park.

Yes, Midtowner, the park will have lots and lots and lots of multi-family housing around it but thats what an urban park should have. You want many many people using it which will bring many more people. On the other sides of the multi-family housing will be retail, hotels, office buildings, entertainment.

I went back and looked at the video too, and what I heard was "new urban community". One person did say that the park could be a catalyst for revitalization and development, but went on to say "More important, you have a park where people want to come".

Since we live in a capitalistic society, the people who buy the land adjacent to the park will probably build what they think will sell, and sell for the highest price. It's the same way everywhere. In a golf course development, the lots on the course are the most expensive. In Nichols Hills, the most expensive housing is on Grand Boulevard. An identical house four blocks away from the desirable feature in a development will sell for less money, and that price is driven by the marketplace. So, I agree that housing sited directly adjacent to the park will probably be expensive, just like it would be anywhere else in the country under similar circumstances.

If we cannot affect price, which will be driven by the marketplace, perhaps we can affect density. I don't know a lot about zoning, but I assume you can zone for density, and if so, that needs to be a goal. If people cannot build single family houses on or near the park, then developers will make more money per square foot of land if they go up. So we, as residents of the city, need to do everything we can to make sure this area is zoned for multifamily dwellings, as densely as one can dictate, and, after that, we'll have to leave what is built to those who have the money to develop it, just like we do everywhere else in the city.

All housing prices in the city are based on perceived desirability of the location, age and quality of the housing. You might have to spend $500,000 for a house in Crown Heights, but cross western and you can buy a house of similar size for a third of that price. The more people want to live in an area, the more they're willing to pay to live there, regardless of what construction costs were initially. If people don't want to pay the current prices to live downtown, then housing there will not sell and prices will drop. Then, land prices will fall and the next developers will build less expensive housing. Again, demand will determine price.

Betts, capitalism in its pure form requires ZERO public assistance. If these developers want a park to make their properties sell for $500/sq ft, then they can build a park or at the very least do a TIF. The reason I keep going back to Nichols Hills is because it's very similar -- a residential park with expensive real estate around it. They paid for their own park, so can developers today. They're going to make a mint and that's fine. I just don't think they need millions of our tax dollars to do it.

Don't be suprised if the transit initiative carries even more weight as the start of a regional system. Downtown is essential to "getting it right" as it is the "nexus" of any system. But don't be suprised if MTP captures the enthusiasm of leadership, has been working with them, and obtains even more broad transit improvements. City council has come a long way to their credit in understanding what a solid start is.

Oklahoma City council decision could lay tracks for commuter system
BY BRYAN DEAN
Published: September 16, 2009

Oklahoma City leaders passed two measures Tuesday that could help bring commuter rail service to Oklahoma City.

City council members voted to support an application for federal grant money to fund commuter rail lines from downtown Oklahoma City to Tinker Air Force Base and from Edmond to Norman.

Council members also asked the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments to conduct a study to determine the best location for a downtown commuter rail transit hub.

Mayor Mick Cornett said the resolution supporting the grant funds expresses the city’s willingness to chip in if matching funds are required for the maintenance of the commuter rail lines.

"This just shows our intent to be a part of the solution without knowing what that obligation might be,” Cornett said.

"It doesn’t actually commit us to anything other than best intent.”

City Manager Jim Couch said the city’s share of the costs isn’t known, but would likely be less than $1 million a year.

Oklahoma City, Del City, Midwest City, Edmond, Moore and Norman will all be expected to share some portion of the cost for maintaining the lines if they are built, city officials said.

Cornett said the resolution was needed to help convince federal officials the city is serious about the project.

"The funding for this proposed line is very much up in the air,” Cornett said.

"There are federal grants involved. The state could get involved. We expect these other municipalities to get involved. I’d like to see this line happen, but it’s very early in the process.”

If such lines are built, the city will need a place for downtown passengers to get on and off.

City leaders are convinced such a transportation hub also would need to connect with the other mass transit services in Oklahoma City.

Right now, that means buses. City officials also want a hub that can accommodate a streetcar system if one is funded in the future.

The study the city is requesting from the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments would determine the best place for a transportation hub meeting those requirements.

The city also is expected to include transit in its plans for MAPS 3.

Cornett said the MAPS 3 proposal will be unveiled by the end of next week.

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-decision-could-lay-tracks-for-commuter-system/article/3401342?custom_click=headlines_widget)

The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=102469)

I keep reading these posts that refer to the conceptual drawings and renderings of C2S, specifically the park.

Land use planning, to create and draft a plan, requires pretty pictures and renderings. But, they are just that. All that can be gleened from the renderings is potential land use itself, not what the buildings will actually look like as they come out of the ground. In MAPS 1, none of the built facilities look like the original renderings on the campaign literature. Heck, the library, ballpark and canal are not even in the same location as was depicted in the conceptual plans.

The Plan calls for a large park, two block wide between Robinson and Hudson, running south from the current I-40 to the new I-40. The surrounding uses, while the planners think residential is the best use, is currently undetermined. The existing zoning in that area allows for a multitude of land uses, such as office, commercial, light industrial, and residential. There's nothing to keep developers from building a variety of these uses that would surround the park.

As for the park itself, the video shown on the OETA link is not the most current. The video was produced by the architects/planners who created the C2S Plan. They were not the same people who the City hired to design the park this past summer (a group out of Houston, I believe). It will be (and is) completely different from the original park layout seen in the C2S plan and video.

Dave, I too am a conservative republican. But I, along with many peers, want to grow up to live in an urban neighborhood. Not necessarily because of my morality but because of the daily life I imagine enjoying there.

I assert that the battle is not about urban vs suburban and should not be framed that way. Rather it is about metro area vs metro area. In order to stay competitive, okc must offer a good urban lifestyle Along with the suburban. This is why it should be an effort supported by all- let's be honest, our suburbs don't need help being more suburban, but our urbs need help being more urban. If we do not act, we risk continuing the brain drain that plaues Oklahoma. The park and other downtown improvements are vital to the future of the whole metro area because of the important role our core will play in attracting economic opportunities.


Wonderfully phrased and I completely understand your point. Heck, if you frame it that way - "we have urban, we have suburban," and we're just wanting to perpetuate options, I think that is a brilliant way to pose the issue to the public. You may have just won me over! (And, no, I'm not kidding).

I guess what bothers me is the tack some take that implies a moral superiority of the urban life over the suburban, when in reality they are perfectly legitimate alternative choices. That you have found a way to frame the concept without the adversarial relationship is delightfully compelling.

Betts, capitalism in its pure form requires ZERO public assistance. If these developers want a park to make their properties sell for $500/sq ft, then they can build a park or at the very least do a TIF. The reason I keep going back to Nichols Hills is because it's very similar -- a residential park with expensive real estate around it. They paid for their own park, so can developers today. They're going to make a mint and that's fine. I just don't think they need millions of our tax dollars to do it.

We don't live in a truly capitalistic society. There are rules and regulations everywhere and they are an unfortunate necessity. Capitalism run-wild is what caused our economic near-collapse last year. We try to come as close to capitalism as we can to spur growth, progress, development and growth.

There are thousands of projects that have been started and finished including right here in OKC where public money was used as the catalyst to spur private development. You seem to ignore the fact that Bricktown's success is based on exactly what you dismiss with C2S. There is a point where you reach a critical mass where government builds a foundation for redevelopment and public assistance is no longer needed in a particular district or area. We have reached that in Bricktown (unless you want to expand something the city has already done) and the result is > $1 billion in private redevelopment money. When credit loosens up again, more will be built.

You are living in a dream world if you think private developers woudl ever be able to piece together such a huge parcel of land for redevelopment. It isn't practical and it would be so colossally complicated it would never get done. Redevelopment of urban areas on this type of scale MUST be initiated by a government entity. Your idea of a TIF will probably happen but that's not what buys land, pays to clear it and builds parks.

They're most likely getting the land through OCURA. OCURA can help them develop according to a plan, sort of acting as a 'master developer.' Developers will get a hell of a deal on this. Let them pay for it.

Wonderfully phrased and I completely understand your point. Heck, if you frame it that way - "we have urban, we have suburban," and we're just wanting to perpetuate options, I think that is a brilliant way to pose the issue to the public. You may have just won me over! (And, no, I'm not kidding).

I guess what bothers me is the tack some take that implies a moral superiority of the urban life over the suburban, when in reality they are perfectly legitimate alternative choices. That you have found a way to frame the concept without the adversarial relationship is delightfully compelling.

Its wonderful to see people with an open mind. I try to be but am guilty of being closed-minded as much as anyone. Just as with PETA-huggers or Eco-freaks, there can be kind of a smugness about those who think they know what is best for everyone. My take is that the overriding fact of our future is that we are running out of oil and gasoline. We simply MUST find a different mode of powering our lives and we simply must find cleaner alternatives.

Though I personally prefer the openness and green grass of a more rural area, I completely understand the eventuality that cities such as OKC that were built for 20th century life simply MUST become more urban. As I get older and may no longer be able to take care of as much, I also can see the advantages of more urban living.

The cities that are most successful world-wide have high density clusters of people. Public transportation is most successful where you have high density living. High density living can make it unnecessary to own a car. OKC is not an exception and our success means we have to become more urbanized. With so much unused and underutilized land in OKC, we can grow inward. MAPS for Kids was a great start to upgrade OKC schools. MAPS for Kids II where money is used to improve the acedemics of the schools could be the catalyst that will draw new parents into the city. MAPS III takes a large and largely blighted area and will build the infrastructure for private development to take over.