NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-sets-maps-3-election-for-dec.-8/article/3404871?custom_click=lead_story_comment#comments)

I ain't ready to vote. It's much too soon.

I ain't ready to vote. It's much too soon.

As much research as you've done, you SHOULD be ready to vote!

I also posted a poll in the Poll Vault section of this website, vote if you get a chance. There is also a poll on www.urbanneighbors.org as well.

As much research as you've done, you SHOULD be ready to vote!
I really wish that that were so. My propensity is to be a gung-ho cheerleader for Oklahoma City, and I think that I am. But, in this instance, it seems that the more I learn the less certain I become.

Hopefully, additional information will become available and I will have less difficulty in this.

How certain were you the first time around, when things were the same way, and local citizens were much less educated on such issues than now?

How certain were you the first time around, when things were the same way, and local citizens were much less educated on such issues than now?
I've wondered about that myself. Truth is, I don't recall.

How certain were you the first time around, when things were the same way, and local citizens were much less educated on such issues than now?

I remember not even knowing precisely WHERE anything was going to be built, because I never went downtown. I remember driving down I -40 and being surprised to see the Ford Center going up where it was. I remember it being like unwrapping a present each time something new was completed.

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-sets-maps-3-election-for-dec.-8/article/3404871?custom_click=lead_story_comment#comments)

Or vote AGAINST Maps 3....

This morning, I also added such a poll, upper left corner, Doug Dawgz Blog (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/) . As this is written, the tally is 4 approve, 0 disapprove, 0 undecided. Of course, while I asked that only Oklahoma City voters vote, I have no way to make that happen. You can also change your vote later, if you want.

Or vote AGAINST Maps 3....

you mean vote AGAINST Oklahoma City?

This morning, I also added such a poll, upper left corner, Doug Dawgz Blog (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/) . As this is written, the tally is 4 approve, 0 disapprove, 0 undecided. Of course, while I asked that only Oklahoma City voters vote, I have no way to make that happen. You can also change your vote later, if you want.
Things have changed .. the vote in my blog is now 50/50 with none undecided.

you mean vote AGAINST Oklahoma City?

No, not at all, I was simply offering the opposite viewpoint.

I am actually in favor of most, if not all of the proposed MAPS 3 projects. I do however have some of the same concerns that Doug has expressed.

A "No" vote maybe for a number of reasons, perhaps someone doesn't like the list of projects, is tired of seemingly never-ending temporary taxes, doesn't like the method of funding, etc., etc. it does not automatically mean a vote against OKC (IMO).

Personally think that compared to heavy debt incurring methods which the City also uses, a pay-as-you-go sales tax is the best method. But it isn't exactly that either. MAPS 3 projects have already raked up $26M in bond debt from the 2007 General Obligation Bond (close to $6M already spent buying the Post Office and Goodwill properties in the Core to Shore/Park area). The "service on bond debt" can really add up. A Journal Record article indicated that a $10M bond debt was going to be needed for the Library in MAPS, and it was going to cost $1M/year for the 20 year term of the Bond. The $10M shortfall is actually costing $30M (the $10M borrowed + the $20M in interest). Never did run across an article saying if that bond debt was incurred or not. If ANYONE has a link, please provide. If the bond debt did happen, we are STILL paying for MAPS (and will be for another 8 years, the balance of the 20 years).

The Ordinance we are actually voting on in December, clearly states that the City can incur even more debt, including bonds:

"(7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement."


It does appear on the surface that they are limited to strictly "cash flow purposes", but are they the ones that get to decide what constitutes that (don't know, am asking). Given the all-inclusive language of other parts of the Ordinance, it very well could.

This isn't new to MAPS 3, similar language was also present in the Ford tax and wouldn't be at all surprised if it can be found in MAPS for Kids and the original MAPS.

Like I said, was just offering the opposite viewpoint. No matter how you feel about MAPS 3, I encourage all to be as informed about the facts as you can (a good starting point is to actually read the Ordinance you are voting on, NOT just the Ballot language) and go vote In December.