Surprised no one posted this yet. Make sure to recommend and rate the article so we get higher in the rankings on article placement.

Okla. City officials urging tax for new projects - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/17/business-financial-impact-us-maps-3-projects-oklahoma_6901484.html)

Surprised no one posted this yet.


I have a day job.

I have a day job.

obviously not if you posted on this :dizzy:

"Do we really want and need a new convention center?" Jolly said. "The one we have now has never been filled to capacity, it's not continuously booked and it's subsidized by the city to the tune of $2 million a year.

"I don't think that's the kind of project that should be lumped in with sidewalks and walking trails."

Maybe if the convention center was on par with our peer-cities he might have a point, but it isn't. No one says, "I don't want get a new TV because my current one is broken and no one uses it." If anything is left out of MAPS III it should be biking trails and sidewalks. I don't think they are MAPS worthy.

If anything is left out of MAPS III it should be biking trails and sidewalks. I don't think they are MAPS worthy.

I think they are MAPS worthy because if we don't take care of them now, the city will never get them put in..

I think people see more of a benefit from the walking trails and side walks. Many citizens will never personally use the convention center.

I think they are MAPS worthy because if we don't take care of them now, the city will never get them put in..

As I said in another post, there are only a handful of ways large-scale funding can be done for capital improvement projects. MAPS is a sales tax pay-as-you-go type of funding program. You pay for what you get. The other common way is for municipalities to issue bonds to pay for projects. Bond issues are a disadvantage for municipalities because the muni. must pay interest on all the money it spends. Therefore, the cost to build something is much more than it would be on a pay-as-you-go program.

In either case, the main risk is inflation. OKC has had bond issues in the past where all the bonds were never issued and some promised projects never built. OKC is no different from any other major city in this respect. MAPS risk is that inflation will increase the cost of some of the projects over and above what MAPS revenues are. People DO get bent out of shape about this and it is understandable, however, inflation is something that is out of the control of the city and MAPS planners. All they can do is build in an assumed rate of inflation in the cost of the projects.

As far as the trails and sidewalks, city budgets really aren't set up to fund large scale projects simply out of normal annual revenues. Small projects can be undertaken but mainly, cities can repair and replace but not fund larger projects.

IMO, a MAPS-type of pay-as-you-go program is far superior to a bond issue. We will get far more for our money this way.

Maybe if the convention center was on par with our peer-cities he might have a point, but it isn't. No one says, "I don't want get a new TV because my current one is broken and no one uses it." If anything is left out of MAPS III it should be biking trails and sidewalks. I don't think they are MAPS worthy.


I tend to agree with you Kerry, but the new polling out shows these to be the most popular items in MAPS III right now. Granted, the public will become more educated on the other projects, but the convention center is toxicly bad in the polling right now, so they need the sidewalks and bike trails in the mix.

As I said in another post, there are only a handful of ways large-scale funding can be done for capital improvement projects. MAPS is a sales tax pay-as-you-go type of funding program. You pay for what you get. The other common way is for municipalities to issue bonds to pay for projects. Bond issues are a disadvantage for municipalities because the muni. must pay interest on all the money it spends. Therefore, the cost to build something is much more than it would be on a pay-as-you-go program.

In either case, the main risk is inflation. OKC has had bond issues in the past where all the bonds were never issued and some promised projects never built. OKC is no different from any other major city in this respect. MAPS risk is that inflation will increase the cost of some of the projects over and above what MAPS revenues are. People DO get bent out of shape about this and it is understandable, however, inflation is something that is out of the control of the city and MAPS planners. All they can do is build in an assumed rate of inflation in the cost of the projects.

As far as the trails and sidewalks, city budgets really aren't set up to fund large scale projects simply out of normal annual revenues. Small projects can be undertaken but mainly, cities can repair and replace but not fund larger projects.

IMO, a MAPS-type of pay-as-you-go program is far superior to a bond issue. We will get far more for our money this way.

Agreed. Furthermore, if people actually read what details we do have from MAPS 3 thus far, they would see that in addition to experts predicting some level of inflation in the figures, etc. There is also a $17 million dollar cushion, in case revenues come in less than expected.

There is nothing -- nothing in my opinion in Maps 3 that would be more immediately beneficial, (once installed) and accessible to the citizens than abundant sidewalks and recreational paths, plus such amenities are important considerations when it comes to economic development as it is a legimitate quality of life issue.

There is nothing -- nothing in my opinion in Maps 3 that would be more immediately beneficial, (once installed) and accessible to the citizens than abundant sidewalks and recreational paths, plus such amenities are important considerations when it comes to economic development as it is a legimitate quality of life issue.

mass transit would go MUCH further in terms of economic development, and accessibility

Mass transit would go much further in terms of economic development (along with the reconfiguration of current bus routes), but the sidewalks and trails, IMO, will absolutely enhance and compliment the new transit options in the way Hondo1 describes.

New sidewalks, I believe, will surprise us all with their benefits... if not for beautification alone.

The more I think about each project, the more I tend to agree on all that were chosen to be included in MAPS 3.

Do a case study on any city that has a decent mass transit system. The sidewalks, we can get with private money if the city will simply have stricter building requirements.

Do a case study on any city that has a decent mass transit system. The sidewalks, we can get with private money if the city will simply have stricter building requirements.

How do you get private money to fund sidewalk construction if the buildings are already in place? I agree, sidewalks should be required on a new construction project but sidewalks are a safety issue. The city and the public need to fund these where they are not already in place.

I guess this is where the need for more details after MAPS 3 passes comes in.

I'm picturing the major streets (mile lines, etc) with sidewalks and sidewalks connecting those with libraries, schools, and parks.

Do you think these would be full-on 'streetscapes', or simply 3 foot wide strips on concrete everywhere?

I agree, sidewalks should be required on a new construction project but sidewalks are a safety issue.

Do these types of requirements on other place usually stipulate the design and materials used in sidewalk requirements?

The downtown streetscape master plan uses indentical materials throughout downtown increasing the pedestrain experience and at the least the appearance of walkability.

Currently, downtown is a mis-mash of sidewalk styles.

"Furthermore, if people actually read what details we do have from MAPS 3 thus far, they would see that in addition to experts predicting some level of inflation in the figures, etc. There is also a $17 million dollar cushion, in case revenues come in less than expected."

You do realize that the $17M is only 2.3% of the overall $777M budget and MAPS came in at nearly 50% more than what voters were told (over that if you include the $120M to "finish" the Ford Center??