View Full Version : MAPS 3 Press release



Pages : [1] 2 3

ChowRunner
09-17-2009, 01:04 PM
09/17/09
Contact: David Holt, 297-3073

Mayor and Council announce MAPS 3 proposal Initiative includes eight projects to create jobs and improve quality of life
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and members of the Oklahoma City Council today announced plans for a MAPS 3 proposal that is expected to be considered by the citizens of Oklahoma City on December 8.

The ordinance calling for the election will be introduced at the September 22nd City Council meeting and considered at the September 29th meeting.

The initiative proposes a diverse list of eight projects:

• A new, approximately 70-acre central park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River

• A new rail-based streetcar system, plus potential funding for other rail transit initiatives, such as commuter lines and a transit hub

• A new downtown convention center

• Sidewalks to be placed on major streets and near facilities used by the public throughout the City

• 57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City

• Improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world

• State-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers throughout the City designed for senior citizens

• Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds

“This proposal dreams big, and it continues the momentum and renaissance of the last 15 years,” said Mayor Cornett. “I believe it will achieve the goals that have always defined MAPS projects – creating jobs and improving our quality of life. I think it recognizes the needs of the world-class city we are becoming, and I think it will capture our imaginations. If this initiative moves forward, the next 10 years of this City’s history will be more exciting than the last 10. We have hardly scratched the surface of what this City is capable.”

The MAPS 3 proposal calls for a seven-year, nine-month one-cent sales tax that will maintain the Oklahoma City sales tax rate where it currently stands. Oklahoma City’s sales tax rate is one of the lowest of all municipalities in central Oklahoma. If approved, the collection of the sales tax will commence on April 1, 2010, the day after the conclusion of the sports facilities sales tax collection that voters approved in March, 2008. The MAPS for Kids sales tax collection lasted seven years.

The estimated total cost of the initiative is $777 million. That total cost includes $17 million in contingency funds.

The creation of previous MAPS packages were inclusive for their time, created through committees or by elected City leaders, but technology allowed this initiative to be molded by the people of Oklahoma City through the most inclusive process to date. In 2007, Mayor Cornett announced the launch of The City of Oklahoma City's Offical Home Page (http://www.MAPS3.org), which for four months conducted a “call for ideas” open to all citizens.

Eighty-five percent of respondents urged the City to consider a MAPS 3 proposal. Respondents also provided 2,747 ideas. Of the 14 ideas that were most popular in that survey, 12 have been included in MAPS 3 or other City initiatives since 2007.

Mayor Cornett urged citizens to withhold judgment on the MAPS 3 proposal as he and the Council explain the eight projects in detail over the next two-and-a-half months. The Mayor announced that each of the projects will be the focus of regular press conferences starting in October.

“Today’s announcement is exciting, but it’s also a lot to take in,” said Cornett. “We will spend the next two-and-a-half months fully informing the citizens of the benefits of these projects. No one who wants to see our City’s momentum continue should be complacent just because MAPS and MAPS for Kids have been successful. These MAPS 3 projects must stand on their own, and the Council and I believe they will.

“We look forward to what will be a very public discussion. At the end of it, I believe we will have accomplished the most important initiative in our history, and this City will never be the same.”

Information on MAPS 3 will continue to be added at City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3).

# # #

metro
09-17-2009, 01:36 PM
http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/19214-maps-3-proposal-almost-ready-4.html

OKCTalker
09-17-2009, 01:43 PM
Wow - as ambitious a plan as I've seen, and diverse enough for everyone to find something they like and dislike. The one penny sales tax financing is easy and painless, but who thinks that this is too many projects wrapped up into one package?

shane453
09-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Wow - as ambitious a plan as I've seen, and diverse enough for everyone to find something they like and dislike. The one penny sales tax financing is easy and painless, but who thinks that this is too many projects wrapped up into one package?

The reason for the success of MAPS is the combination of many projects into one vote. This is the reason that MAPS is widely known and replicated as probably the most innovative and creative urban revitalization strategies ever.

westsidesooner
09-17-2009, 02:08 PM
I have not had time to study the proposal yet....maybe tonight, but the the pics in the image area are sweet...esp #2 and #7 showing Devon, and #6 showing union station. Maybe someone can copy and paste those pics. http://www.okc.gov/maps3/OKCCentralPark.pdf

circuitboard
09-17-2009, 02:10 PM
I have not had time to study the proposal yet....maybe tonight, but the the pics in the image area are sweet...esp #2 and #7 showing Devon, and #6 showing union station. Maybe someone can copy and paste those pics. http://www.okc.gov/maps3/OKCCentralPark.pdf

I agree, the pictures are impressive!

soonerguru
09-17-2009, 10:00 PM
The park looks very cool. My only beefs from looking at the renderings:

1. The lake looks too small for rowboats
2. Not enough forestation

It is very urban and cosmopolitan. In the end, despite the critiques we've had, it may end up being our favorite of the projects. It is certainly something that will benefit the whole city.

Now, does anyone doubt this can be built to this quality with the budget set aside in MAPS? I would have no way of knowing.

mugofbeer
09-17-2009, 10:04 PM
I agree with the lake. Make it larger or more round to accomodate paddle boats.

andy157
09-18-2009, 02:23 AM
I agree with the lake. Make it larger or more round to accomodate paddle boats.So, what your saying is that, you really don't agree with the lake. You can always vote no, you know.

benman
09-18-2009, 06:01 AM
I dont doubt that it can be built to this quality with the budget. Usually a project will go over budget, but I'm sure they will be watching this very closely and its not the type of project that will go over budget. The main reason I dont see it being a problem is because the park will not consist of any buildings of substantial size. Basicallly, they just have to go in, clear out the square, dig a hole, add water, pour some sidewalks, add landscaping, and the place will be done.

metro
09-18-2009, 08:41 AM
The park looks very cool. My only beefs from looking at the renderings:

1. The lake looks too small for rowboats
2. Not enough forestation

It is very urban and cosmopolitan. In the end, despite the critiques we've had, it may end up being our favorite of the projects. It is certainly something that will benefit the whole city.

Now, does anyone doubt this can be built to this quality with the budget set aside in MAPS? I would have no way of knowing.

Again, the lakes are NOT designed for rowboats. Model boats yes, the intent of C2S is to keep the water activities at or near the Oklahoma River. Paddle Boats and the whitewater course will be on the Oklahoma River. Notice $60 million in MAPS 3 being proposed for River Projects. The south side of the river will get permanent video boards, bleachers, lighting, and other amenities. This has always been the proposal. Quality, I'm sure it will be built as proposed, keep in mind renderings change, this is just initial renderings, final wouldn't come until after funding is passed. Again, if funding is passed, citizen panels, consultants and others come into play. The only water feature in the "Central Park" (remember C2S will be a string of 5 parks) will be the interactive kids water fountain area. It will be impressive and supposed to be nationally recognized when built.


I agree with the lake. Make it larger or more round to accomodate paddle boats.

See above.

soonerguru
09-18-2009, 08:49 AM
Again, the lakes are NOT designed for rowboats. Model boats yes, the intent of C2S is to keep the water activities at or near the Oklahoma River. Paddle Boats and the whitewater course will be on the Oklahoma River. Notice $60 million in MAPS 3 being proposed for River Projects. The south side of the river will get permanent video boards, bleachers, lighting, and other amenities. This has always been the proposal. Quality, I'm sure it will be built as proposed, keep in mind renderings change, this is just initial renderings, final wouldn't come until after funding is passed. Again, if funding is passed, citizen panels, consultants and others come into play. The only water feature in the "Central Park" (remember C2S will be a string of 5 parks) will be the interactive kids water fountain area. It will be impressive and supposed to be nationally recognized when built.



See above.

Metro,

What is the thinking on having no interactivity with the lake in the park? I understand the improvements on the river, but one of the most charming aspects of Central Park in NYC is the boathouse and the ability to take a rowboat out on the lake.

Regarding the river, there is a sense -- perhaps misplaced -- that the river is for rowers. Some of them are a bit snooty about it, too. I remember being rudely rebuffed by one of the rowing officials early on when I inquired about renting a rowboat. "You have to belong to a rowing team," I was told.

Truly, the rowers have a sense of ownership of the river.

If you're suggesting a more public-oriented water space at the river, that's great. But that wouldn't negate the value of people using the lake in the park for activities also. Otherwise it's just a reflecting pond.

metro
09-18-2009, 08:59 AM
guru, that's what I was told by the consultants. to maximize use of the Oklahoma River and all water activities will take place there. Again, model boats and such will be used on the mini lakes in the park, but that's about it. I too was surprised and voiced my concerns. Basically they are saying to help build up use of the Oklahoma River as the park will still be busy with other highly programmed activities. I don't know if you all caught it but directly southeast of the lakes (and perhaps on the burms in between them) will be some smaller artful wind turbines to help generate power for the park. Hopefully the park will be self sustaining with power, but at least the lighting can be with wind and solar.

DelCamino
09-18-2009, 12:08 PM
Generally, I like the rendering of the park and believe the people interaction is good. However, there definately needs be an activity section of the park, with ball fields, backstops and play areas. The area is big enough to accomodate both strollers, model boats and day dreamers, and those those users who want to have some activity. If the proposed abutting residential is to be successful, they will need such a space.

metro
09-18-2009, 12:21 PM
DelCamino, there is an activity section to the park and includes ball fields, etc. The "great lawn" part of Central Park will have unstructured field to allow for multiple use and "pick up" games.

The park directly south of the highway (on opposite side of new I-40) will have the ball fields, etc. If you see the new renderings you will see it.

DelCamino
09-18-2009, 12:22 PM
Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

mugofbeer
09-18-2009, 12:25 PM
Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

I respectfully disagree. The less parkgoers have to worry about cars the better. If drivers have to go a few blocks to get to the other side, then so be it. Washington Park in Denver is 3/4 mile long and has no access to the other side and no one complained about that while I was there. They were too busy looking at the babes jogging and biking.

DelCamino
09-18-2009, 12:28 PM
I see it now, Metro. While not across the street and easily accessed from the proposed residential, it could work. However, that's the portion of the park ODOT agreed to fund/construct, inconjunctin with the I-40 relocation project. Hope they keep their word and none of the building of that park comes from the funds meant for this new city park.

metro
09-18-2009, 12:42 PM
Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

I disagree the park needs a street through it, we're not NYC and have a MASSIVE park and don't have the traffic of LA, but as I pointed out in another thread a month or two ago, ODOT currently has an off ramp going into the park at NW 7th. Hopefully they will not go through with it.

mugofbeer
09-18-2009, 12:46 PM
If you're talking about the point where I-40 breaks the park, a drive through there would be fine.

kevinpate
09-18-2009, 12:48 PM
An off ramp at NW 7th goes into the park?
Where exactly is the northern boundary of this park?

Sorry to get confused, but I is.

betts
09-18-2009, 07:31 PM
I disagree the park needs a street through it, we're not NYC and have a MASSIVE park and don't have the traffic of LA, but as I pointed out in another thread a month or two ago, ODOT currently has an off ramp going into the park at NW 7th. Hopefully they will not go through with it.

I don't know how we object, but this needs vociferous objection. I don't understand why we need any streets bisecting the park. Since there is currently nothing of significance in that location right now, there's no reason we cannot plan around it and ensure there are no streets running through it. It's bad enough that we have to have I-40 running through it.

Oil Capital
09-18-2009, 08:28 PM
Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

Looks more like 4 blocks, which, incidentally is planned to be blocked by the convention center anyway.

kevinpate
09-18-2009, 08:36 PM
Ok, if even a chicken fry lovin largie like me doesn't think the distances are a big deal, adding yet another road into a not so large to begin with park seems just a tad excessive.

bdhumphreys
09-18-2009, 09:03 PM
I don't understand why we need any streets bisecting the park.

Does this comment include the boulevard? We don't need it for traffic reasons, so I wonder why the park shouldn't just connect all the way north to Reno. What is called the "boulevard" could just be a curvilinear cut-through called SW 3rd Street.

OKC74
09-18-2009, 10:22 PM
Does anyone think that MAPS 3 could already be in trouble/getting negative energy from citizens? I know it's WAY early, but I have already seen a poll on News 9's website that shows how people would vote, and right now it is 59% voting NOT in favor of it to 41% that ARE in favor of it. I hope the city does a good job of educating the people so that this thing will get passed.

brianinok
09-18-2009, 10:29 PM
I actually that that is better than the poll they had up for the Ford Center tax.....

OKC74
09-18-2009, 10:36 PM
I hope you're right brianinok. Maybe it will pick up steam. We're used to the "penny" sales tax...so it really won't make that much of a difference.

bbhill
09-18-2009, 10:39 PM
I think the renderings for the park look pretty good. However, I would have to agree with some of the other posters that the the forestation could be a little more dense. . .

soonerguru
09-18-2009, 11:48 PM
Website polls are not scientific. I'm quite sure these issues have been polled legitimately. The transit issue, if memory serves, would have passed on its own. I wouldn't pay attention to Kelly Ogle viewers' Internet polling results.

OKC74
09-19-2009, 12:47 AM
LOL soonerguru...you're right. I just don't want to see the momentum we've started in this city be put aside. I remember when the arena sales tax was going on, there were a lot of people I knew personally who were not for it, and said that they couldn't afford to have the penny sales tax continue. So with this being yet another extension (which I don't mind at all because it will have great benefits for our city!), and with the economy the way it is, I really hope that people don't start having that "oh we don't need it we've done a lot so far and we'll be fine" mentality about it. We all know that this is necessary to keep OKC on the fast track to being a successful city, so I hope in December the rest of the city recognizes this. :)

Bunty
09-19-2009, 01:54 AM
Does anyone think that MAPS 3 could already be in trouble/getting negative energy from citizens? I know it's WAY early, but I have already seen a poll on News 9's website that shows how people would vote, and right now it is 59% voting NOT in favor of it to 41% that ARE in favor of it. I hope the city does a good job of educating the people so that this thing will get passed.

IF one is a real conservative of the type that believes very passionately in smaller government and lower taxes, I don't see how such people could possibly support this project. So as conservative as Oklahoma and Oklahoma City is, the results of the poll should come to no surprise.

betts
09-19-2009, 07:13 AM
I don't believe this is about government size at all. And yes, the people who absolutely believe in no taxes cannot support this. But, unlike a lot of taxes whether money just seems to disappear into the ether, and we have no decision about how it is spent, this tax is different. We know exactly what we will get for our money, at least as far as broad concepts go. We've seen what we got with our money with MAPS, and I can't believe how much I got for how little. This is why, even though I grumble about most taxes, I cannot imagine not supporting this one.

kevinpate
09-19-2009, 07:18 AM
Could see this giving a hard line conserv something to chew on.

S/he wants lower taxes.
A no mo maps vote = temp tax expires = lower tax base.
A yes vote = no reduction in taxes, but hey, some good things get built.

Yer mayor's right about passage, it's not a sure thang, not at all. Folks who want it will need to want it bad enough to personally sell their neighbors and co-workers on it.

hoya
09-20-2009, 11:51 AM
People want to make conservatives into caricatures. Like we're automatons that say "oh, taxes BAD!" The truth is, we simply believe that government should try and stay out of people's lives, and that many government programs are wasteful and inefficient. We're perfectly willing to support programs that have a proven track record, where government officials are being prudent stewards of the taxpayers' money. Transportation, city parks, river improvements, all these things are obviously within the authority of a city government.

Laramie
09-20-2009, 12:37 PM
The MAPS dream lives on... ...as does its momentum.

:busterbun

Just remember to get out and vote!

Just think, in eight years we can look forward to MAP 4.

1. Expanding the rail.

2. Improvements at existing MAPS projects.

3. Many other needs...

soonerguru
09-20-2009, 12:48 PM
People want to make conservatives into caricatures. Like we're automatons that say "oh, taxes BAD!" The truth is, we simply believe that government should try and stay out of people's lives, and that many government programs are wasteful and inefficient. We're perfectly willing to support programs that have a proven track record, where government officials are being prudent stewards of the taxpayers' money. Transportation, city parks, river improvements, all these things are obviously within the authority of a city government.

hoyasooner,

No offense, but several "conservatives," at least that's what they call themselves, have made caricatures of themselves. I'm sure you're not one of them.

And not all self-described conservatives are into the government staying out of people's lives. Some would like the government to be moral police and dictate people's spiritual lives. Again, I'm sure you're not one of these.

The sad fact, though, is that the loudest conservatives right now are the most extreme, and for some of them, even to have a publicly owned police department amounts to socialism. Again, I'm sure you're not one of these.

I miss "common sense" conservatives. There aren't nearly enough of them in the national debate right now.

soonerguru
09-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Not to mention, liberals also believe in good, well-run, efficient government. It is a caricature of liberals to suggest they just love to waste taxpayer money on worthless, inefficient initiatives.

Doug Loudenback
09-20-2009, 03:38 PM
I think that some of you wanted to see the images of Central Park, the only images that have been presented by the city thus far since Mayor Cornett's September 17 press conference. In conjunction with putting together my own thoughts about the upcoming Maps 3 vote, expressed at Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS III — The Actual Proposal (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/09/maps-iii-actual-proposal.html), I extracted the 8 images of Central Park. The extracted images are quite large -- 5400 px wide, but I've resized them for my blog purposes. Rather than presenting thumbnail versions which are 250 px wide, I'll show them here in 1024 px wide format:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page1_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page2_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page3_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page4_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page5_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page6_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page7_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page8_1024.jpg

While I enjoy the beauty of the above images, I'm not at all pleased about the way this has all come down in two respects: (1) Mayor Mick said during the summer that additional input would be received and considered but that now appears to have been incorrect; (2) Additional detail about the proposal is clearly presently available but will not be forthcoming from the city until a series of presentations begins at an unspecified time in October. That's crap. We're entitled and intelligent enough to see and evaluate the detail now.

My personal view is that the vote should NOT occur on December 8 but that it should be passed for 3 or so months for a period of public evaluation and perhaps change to the proposal which, at this time, is notable for its lack of detail. At least, that's my perspective.

kevinpate
09-20-2009, 04:11 PM
The next Maps votes, like others before it, is whether to extend an existing tax beyond an actual expiration date. Given various deadlines and such, do they have the ability to postpone the vote date by several months?

Urban Pioneer
09-20-2009, 04:55 PM
Doug, I do somewhat disagree with you in that the planning department has done a great many public opportunities for "general input" over many years. Plus, the city has seemingly tried to conduct regular polling to determine priorities.

They did the Downtown Strategic Initiatives Committee which was made up of a great many citizens "and not the usual suspects". I think that the plans revealed are a culmination of data and sentiments.

We have a incredible resource in Russell Claus. An MIT graduate, he is a transplant from the East Coast and a great asset. I am not sure that the city wants to have the kind of meeting that you might want. Where everyone shows up as amateur Urban Planner for the night.

If we had those kinds of meetings, I don't think we would be anywhere close in 6 months to a proposal. Everybody thinks he/she has the answer.

EBAH
09-20-2009, 05:28 PM
Thankfully, unlike the poll from ch 9, when it comes to an actual vote, the suburbs wont have a say. I think the support for this proposal is MUCH stronger in the actual City of Oklahoma City. We don't have to worry about convincing every Edmondite that this is worth while despite the lack of funding for a train running directly from their front door to the entrance of their office building.

Doug Loudenback
09-20-2009, 06:09 PM
Doug, I do somewhat disagree with you in that the planning department has done a great many public opportunities for "general input" over many years. Plus, the city has seemingly tried to conduct regular polling to determine priorities.

They did the Downtown Strategic Initiatives Committee which was made up of a great many citizens "and not the usual suspects". I think that the plans revealed are a culmination of data and sentiments.

We have a incredible resource in Russell Claus. An MIT graduate, he is a transplant from the East Coast and a great asset. I am not sure that the city wants to have the kind of meeting that you might want. Where everyone shows up as amateur Urban Planner for the night.

If we had those kinds of meetings, I don't think we would be anywhere close in 6 months to a proposal. Everybody thinks he/she has the answer.
That's all good, Urban, but if Mayor Mick wasn't serious about the comments he made last summer, he shouldn't have said them. My comment about input had nothing to do with anything other than the mayor's comments this last summer. But, aside from that, where's the harm in publishing available detail about the final plan NOW instead of spoon feeding it beginning in early October. Are we not entitled to know the detail today?

Like I said in my article, if the vote is in December in all likelihood I'll vote for it, even if my enthusiasm will have been tempered for the reasons I've stated.

Doug Loudenback
09-20-2009, 06:11 PM
The next Maps votes, like others before it, is whether to extend an existing tax beyond an actual expiration date. Given various deadlines and such, do they have the ability to postpone the vote date by several months?
The city council has the ability to do whatever it has the will to do. Timing of a vote is not a matter of legality.

Urban Pioneer
09-20-2009, 06:27 PM
Doug, I would be willing to answer any specifics you might have regarding the transit proposal on the mass transit thread. Feel free to ask if you need more details on that particular item.

I do think that a series of public meetings as to why this proposal is a solid start is in order in the coming months.

Doug Loudenback
09-20-2009, 06:37 PM
Hate to disagree, but it's the attitude that troubles me greatly. It's like city hall is the parent and the rest of us are children who can't possibly read, understand what we read, and reach conclusions without being guided by the parental hand. Sorry, that's just plain wrong.

If you have the details about the streetcar routes and equipment, which I would suppose that you do, then by all means, please do state what you know from the actual proposal which will be submitted. Even if the source really should be the city, I'm glad to have knowledge from wherever it may come. And we shouldn't have to ask. Disclosure, when available, should be a given and expected to occur quite naturally and without some jackass like me saying so.

securityinfo
09-20-2009, 07:40 PM
[QUOTE=Doug Loudenback;256305]I think that some of you wanted to see the images of Central Park, the only images that have been presented by the city thus far since Mayor Cornett's September 17 press conference.


To me, one of the most striking things about the "artist's renderings" is how images of real people are sprinkled about... leaving me with just one question..

Where in the hell are my FLYING CARS???

kevinpate
09-20-2009, 07:43 PM
> Where in the hell are my FLYING CARS???

Why, that's Maps 6.3 silly.
8^)

Midtowner
09-21-2009, 06:55 AM
Doug, I agree with what you're saying. Apparently, when they say members of the public, they really mean certain political insiders with a more direct stake in the project, e.g., developers, landowners, etc., who I'm sure were heard on all of these matters.

It's par for the course in OKC -- a paternalistic City Hall which tells us how it's going to be and only listens to well-connected insiders.

That said, I'll vote for it all because despite the flaws in the process, its' a really good package which could do wonders for the city.

Doug Loudenback
09-21-2009, 07:32 AM
I'll likely vote for it too, pissed at the process or not.

SoonerDave
09-21-2009, 07:54 AM
Thankfully, unlike the poll from ch 9, when it comes to an actual vote, the suburbs wont have a say. I think the support for this proposal is MUCH stronger in the actual City of Oklahoma City. We don't have to worry about convincing every Edmondite that this is worth while despite the lack of funding for a train running directly from their front door to the entrance of their office building.

Here we go again with urbanistas crapping on those of us in the suburbs.

Considering that those of us IN the suburbs will be paying the lion's share of this tax, you're statement is ludicrous on it's face. I live in the suburbs, but in the Oklahoma City area, so I most certainly get to vote on this issue. There a great many citizens who live in similar areas throughout Oklahoma City, and are in the same boat.

It is precisely this bigoted attitude towards the suburbs that makes me want to jump out and vote NO about 5,000 times; I realize that's a spiteful and frustrated attitude, and I generally lean toward supporting this issue, but comments like this (which I believe to be reflective of a pretty broad subset of the core MAPS3 base) really frustrate me. Why does it have to be us versus them?

-sd

p.s. As far as the Ogle poll goes, understand that web polls are worthless as far as legitimate statistical sampling goes. Absolutely worthless.

SoonerDave
09-21-2009, 07:58 AM
That's all good, Urban, but if Mayor Mick wasn't serious about the comments he made last summer, he shouldn't have said them. My comment about input had nothing to do with anything other than the mayor's comments this last summer. But, aside from that, where's the harm in publishing available detail about the final plan NOW instead of spoon feeding it beginning in early October. Are we not entitled to know the detail today?

Like I said in my article, if the vote is in December in all likelihood I'll vote for it, even if my enthusiasm will have been tempered for the reasons I've stated.

This should be a problem for anyone who supports MAPS3. Push out the pretty pictures, get all kinds of warm-fuzzy support, but be sure not to give out too many details. I think this frustrates a LOT of poeple, particularly when it comes to the issue of transparency...and right now, I think you've got to have that if there's any hint of public reticence on the project.

I'm concerned about the financial oversight structure for MAPS3, which I've heard nothing about.

metro
09-21-2009, 08:08 AM
Why does it have to be us versus them?

-sd

p.s. As far as the Ogle poll goes, understand that web polls are worthless as far as legitimate statistical sampling goes. Absolutely worthless.


Because it's obvious to us "urbanistas" as you call us, that it's not an "us vs. them" mentality, but that it will greatly benefit the entire city, as well as the entire state, but the surburbanites seem to not want to grasp or admit this just to prove a point. You conclude web polls are "absolutely worthless", but keep stating you want to vote "no" just to prove a point, to the web posters you claim are absolutely worthless. The only "us vs. them" about MAPS 3 is us versus Dallas, San Antonio, Des Moines, Indy, Charlotte, etc. These are the cities we have to compete with on a regular basis to keep and attract jobs in the metro.

Oil Capital
09-21-2009, 08:23 AM
I think that some of you wanted to see the images of Central Park, the only images that have been presented by the city thus far since Mayor Cornett's September 17 press conference. In conjunction with putting together my own thoughts about the upcoming Maps 3 vote, expressed at Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS III — The Actual Proposal (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/09/maps-iii-actual-proposal.html), I extracted the 8 images of Central Park. The extracted images are quite large -- 5400 px wide, but I've resized them for my blog purposes. Rather than presenting thumbnail versions which are 250 px wide, I'll show them here in 1024 px wide format:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page1_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page2_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page3_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page4_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page5_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page6_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page7_1024.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page8_1024.jpg

While I enjoy the beauty of the above images, I'm not at all pleased about the way this has all come down in two respects: (1) Mayor Mick said during the summer that additional input would be received and considered but that now appears to have been incorrect; (2) Additional detail about the proposal is clearly presently available but will not be forthcoming from the city until a series of presentations begins at an unspecified time in October. That's crap. We're entitled and intelligent enough to see and evaluate the detail now.

My personal view is that the vote should NOT occur on December 8 but that it should be passed for 3 or so months for a period of public evaluation and perhaps change to the proposal which, at this time, is notable for its lack of detail. At least, that's my perspective.

Is your whining about insufficient opportunity for input into the plan regarding the entire MAPS 3 plan or just the park?

In any event, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an overall plan and follow it up with the detailed plans for each element. (It also seems entirely possible that all of the detailed plans are not physically ready for presentation.) Other than someone having their feelings hurt because they think they've been left out of the loop, what is the problem with the details being presented during the 2 1/2 month leading up to the vote? Do you think the citizens of OKC are too dense to be able to grasp the details in that short amount of time?

Furthermore, it is my understanding that there has indeed been opportunity for people to submit comments on the proposed MAPs 3 plan all along the process, including since this past summer.

As these things go, OKC's process has been pretty open and inclusive, and has come up with a plan that even you say you like (or at least are prepared to vote for). It's really a little hard to figure out exactly what your complaint is.

metro
09-21-2009, 09:18 AM
Not to mention City Council meetings are every Tuesday and less than a dozen citizens are usually in attendance. Now I agree the City could do MUCH MORE to promote civic input and involvement, including better PR and night time meetings, but if the general citizen truly cared about the details, I think they'd take at least one Tuesday off a year from work to come voice their complaints to the council.

SoonerDave
09-21-2009, 09:23 AM
Because it's obvious to us "urbanistas" as you call us, that it's not an "us vs. them" mentality, but that it will greatly benefit the entire city, as well as the entire state, but the surburbanites seem to not want to grasp or admit this just to prove a point. You conclude web polls are "absolutely worthless", but keep stating you want to vote "no" just to prove a point, to the web posters you claim are absolutely worthless. The only "us vs. them" about MAPS 3 is us versus Dallas, San Antonio, Des Moines, Indy, Charlotte, etc. These are the cities we have to compete with on a regular basis to keep and attract jobs in the metro.

Metro,

Statistically, web polls are worthless. They are a measure of only those people who actively choose to respond, eg visit the website and answer. They are not scientifically or statistically valid samples of the population.

I NEVER said web posters are absolutely worthess. Never. If you can find where I said it, please point it out.

I did not call all proponents of MAPS3 "urbanistas." I was specifically referencing the poster in this thread who said what I bolded from their post. I've already embraced the unifying notion of "urban AND suburban" life in other posts on this topic. Someone who embraces this "suburbanites won't have a say" mentality, that embodies the attitude of what I call an "urbanista," with all the implicit moral condescension. The folks who want to harmonize OKC with its varying options are the folks pushing OKC ahead.

Whether you wish to admit it, folks who live in the suburbs that lie within the OKC voting area will be the ones that either push this issue to success or failure. For any subset of those supporters to spit in their face seems oddly counterproductive.

The supporters of MAPS3 have a serious choice about how they're going to sell this to the voters. I think you can pass this initiative by selling it as a way to "fix three decades of downtown neglect," and casting positive shadows to downtown's brighter history. Run commercials of black-and-white still photos of how this area (for the park) looks right now, blighted and in disarray, then contrast it with what it will look when the park is done - vibrant, alive, and thriving. Convince the voters that they will get what they pay for with proper oversight, and I think the MAPS3 folks will be happy on Deceber 9th, and you never have to cross the bridge of "us versus them."

-sd

metro
09-21-2009, 09:36 AM
I agree, but again, I think you're basing your assumptions and stance based upon what you're reading on OKCTalk, and not how the Chamber or Mayor are going to promote it. They haven't started promoting it yet and you're jumping to conclusions. The council still has to vote on it at the end of the month. Again, they both have already made it very clear it won't be easy and yes, the OKC suburban voters will be the one that ultimately decides the election. As to why one wouldn't want to further ALL of OKC and make our local economy more valuable, I have no idea how one could rationalize it and make a good case and be able to back it up with real data on why it's a bad idea.

Doug Loudenback
09-21-2009, 09:45 AM
Is your whining about insufficient opportunity for input into the plan regarding the entire MAPS 3 plan or just the park?

In any event, it seems perfectly reasonable to present an overall plan and follow it up with the detailed plans for each element. (It also seems entirely possible that all of the detailed plans are not physically ready for presentation.) Other than someone having their feelings hurt because they think they've been left out of the loop, what is the problem with the details being presented during the 2 1/2 month leading up to the vote? Do you think the citizens of OKC are too dense to be able to grasp the details in that short amount of time?

Furthermore, it is my understanding that there has indeed been opportunity for people to submit comments on the proposed MAPs 3 plan all along the process, including since this past summer.

As these things go, OKC's process has been pretty open and inclusive, and has come up with a plan that even you say you like (or at least are prepared to vote for). It's really a little hard to figure out exactly what your complaint is.
Your opinions are duly noted. If you've read what I've written, here and in the blog article, you will know that you are not stating my position accurately at all. And, thanks for your courteous reply.

Architect2010
09-21-2009, 09:50 AM
I have a question SoonerDave. How will the suburbanites be paying a "lion's share" of this tax? I'm not sure what you mean, so please elaborate. Suburbs rely on the city. Remember that. What's good for the city is good for the suburbs.

SoonerDave
09-21-2009, 09:51 AM
I agree, but again, I think you're basing your assumptions and stance based upon what you're reading on OKCTalk, and not how the Chamber or Mayor are going to promote it. They haven't started promoting it yet and you're jumping to conclusions. The council still has to vote on it at the end of the month. Again, they both have already made it very clear it won't be easy and yes, the OKC suburban voters will be the one that ultimately decides the election. As to why one wouldn't want to further ALL of OKC and make our local economy more valuable, I have no idea how one could rationalize it and make a good case and be able to back it up with real data on why it's a bad idea.

Now THAT's a very fair assessment! Thanks for hearing me out, Metro.