They really needed to do this. I went to the "anti MAPS" rally this morning and was shocked by the level of mis-information being thrown at the public.

MAPSFACTS.ORG (http://www.mapsfacts.org)

Very first problem I see on that site: "Facts: This MAPS proposal is structured the same as previous MAPS proposals and for good reason."

No, it most certainly is not structured the same as previous MAPS proposals.. Do they think we can't go back and look at the previous ballots?

All that site does for me is solidify the FACT that the city is lying to the citizens in order to get a blank check with no oversight and no guarantees about what will be worked on or where the money will actually be used.

If there were only someone out there. Someone with the skills, knowledge, ability, and the integrety to do a comparision of the two sites, that would be great. (hint, hint.)

No, it most certainly is not structured the same as previous MAPS proposals.. Do they think we can't go back and look at the previous ballots?

All that site does for me is solidify the FACT that the city is lying to the citizens in order to get a blank check with no oversight and no guarantees about what will be worked on or where the money will actually be used.

I completely disagree. The other MAPS had diligent citizen oversight boards. The mayor and council have committed to having oversight boards for this MAPS as well.

Regarding the ballots, it is unclear to me exactly what the differences are that you are referring to. It is my understanding that this ballot is written to be in compliance with the current laws as the pertain to such an proposal. So as long as it is stringently in compliance, I don't see the problem.

I guess the final esoteric argument that I find sound is, we elected these people to represent us. So far we have had no scandals and pleasant consistent governing with these particular individuals for many years.

What has changed so much that we can't continue to trust our elected municipal officials to continue making tough discussions for us?

The 1st "Fact" under the Convention Center isn't accurate

The 1st "Fact" under the Convention Center isn't accurate

Why? Because of a potential hotel?

Urban, I don't think many of the anti-MAPS people are going to look at that website. They don't want to be confused by the facts, I can promise you. One could argue that the pro-MAPS people feel the same way, I'm sure.

My biggest problem is that many of the anti-tax people are only against something. I'd like to know what they're for. I want to know what their vision for Oklahoma City is. I want to know how they think we're going to manage transit issues, how we can make this a better city in which to live. What do they think we should do to grow the economy? How do we increase quality of life and offer more leisure time opportunities to our citizens? How do we beautify our city? I'm waiting for something positive.

They seem to want someone else to do it for them (private sector?), but as a group, all I hear is that many of them seem to fear and despise the very private sector that will end up being the only option for development. Larry Nichols has been very magnanimous, but I suspect he won't be building us bike trails and sidewalks, putting in grandstands on the river, building a streetcar or a bigger park, much less a convention center or senior aquatic centers. So, we'll do without. I'm just interested in learning why that makes Oklahoma City a better place in which to live from all of them.

I was just watching Channel 4 and they ran a story on the difference in the Ballots. Basically it is illegal to do it the same way we did in 1993 where each element is "spelled out".

It is a good video.

MAPS 3 ballot criticism - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-maps3-ballot-criticism-story,0,4376475.story)

If there were only someone out there. Someone with the skills, knowledge, ability, and the integrety to do a comparision of the two sites, that would be great. (hint, hint.)
Probably you didn't mean me, but if you did my plate is full. Getting the press conference comparisons ... big time time consuming ... and the Maps 3 "Breaking Through" luncheon done put me waaay behind on my "All the News About MAPS 3" post, and I'm turning to getting that caught up now.

That said, I'd be pretty amazed if the amount of information out there right now, both pro and con, isn't enough for people to come to their own conclusions. To be sure, we're going to be bombarded by internet, radio, press, TV clips for the next two weeks by both sides. But, information in them? Not likely? Bombastic rhetoric? Probably so. One doesn't really get much real information in sound bites, anyway.

It is a good video.

MAPS 3 ballot criticism - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-maps3-ballot-criticism-story,0,4376475.story)
There is absolutely no "news" in that video ... journalists (and I'm generously lumping into that category TV and radio personalities) continue to parrot the unsubstantiated conclusion that detailing projects in a city sales tax ballot/ordinance is illegal.

The entire city's news organization lacks one person who is willing to press the issue: What constitutional provision, statute, or appellate court decision supports that conclusion? We've ether got a boatload of crappy journalists in our city or we have journalists who haven't been unleashed to ask the right questions.

NO ONE HAS IDENTIFIED WHAT THAT LAW IS, whether it be a constitutional, statutory, or appellate court decision. We've already been around the barn on this topic here so I won't further elaborate. Here, we often see people ask, "give me a link." It's the same thing when it comes to matters of law. In a courtroom, the judge would ask, "Give me a citation." None have been provided, not one.

It blows my mind that everyone just accepts the premise and does not challenge the speakers to "give me a citation."

I say this a a pro-MAPS 3 person but that fact doesn't stop my mind from thinking and wanting to know the underpinnings of what we are being told.

I wonder why the Chamber hasn't put their name on the new site... a site without credits is unreliable...

Probably you didn't mean me, but if you did my plate is full. Getting the press conference comparisons ... big time time consuming ... and the Maps 3 "Breaking Through" luncheon done put me waaay behind on my "All the News About MAPS 3" post, and I'm turning to getting that caught up now.

That said, I'd be pretty amazed if the amount of information out there right now, both pro and con, isn't enough for people to come to their own conclusions. To be sure, we're going to be bombarded by internet, radio, press, TV clips for the next two weeks by both sides. But, information in them? Not likely? Bombastic rhetoric? Probably so. One doesn't really get much real information in sound bites, anyway.I understand.

I was just watching Channel 4 and they ran a story on the difference in the Ballots. Basically it is illegal to do it the same way we did in 1993 where each element is "spelled out".

No, basically, that's merely what is being said.

Doug Dawg is absolutely right. NO ONE relying on that alleged reason is identifying the source of that conclusion. If it is true, and not to be rude, but that's a big IF, then it completely defies logic to not put the argument to bed once and for all.

One can't honestly simply claim an action is illegal and provide zero support for the claim. One can throw it out there and pray it sticks, but at what overall cost to credibility?

Like Doug, I'm not a vote NO'er, hades, I'm not even a voter on this matter as I reside elsewhere, but this is something folks ought to hold feet to fire until there is a clear answer. If it is in fact illegal, it's a minor matter to provide a citation for folks to review. Anything less simple speaks very ill of the claim.

No, basically, that's merely what is being said.

Doug Dawg is absolutely right. NO ONE relying on that alleged reason is identifying the source of that conclusion. If it is true, and not to be rude, but that's a big IF, then it completely defies logic to not put the argument to bed once and for all.

One can't honestly simply claim an action is illegal and provide zero support for the claim. One can throw it out there and pray it sticks, but at what overall cost to credibility?

Like Doug, I'm not a vote NO'er, hades, I'm not even a voter on this matter as I reside elsewhere, but this is something folks ought to hold feet to fire until there is a clear answer. If it is in fact illegal, it's a minor matter to provide a citation for folks to review. Anything less simple speaks very ill of the claim.

Free research (and I'm preaching to the choir here 'cuz I know you know how to do this) tip: Go to oscn.net. Go to Legal Research. Bring up the Oklahoma Constitution, Article V. Look for the part about single subject. Now scroll down to the bottom where it has the citationizer. Find one case which stands for the proposition that municipalities are subject to the single subject rule.

Time saver: There's no such case and further by the clear language of the Constitution, the single subject rule specifies it applies to the legislature. It does not specify that it [the rule] applies to municipalities.

Further, municipalities are specifically mentioned in other provisions which were written at the same time by the same folks (said provisions also target the legislature by name).

Does this rule apply to municipalities? All signs point to "no."

Midtowner, I don't even begin to claim to have any legal knowledge. The one thing that I've wondered, however, is whether the fact that there appears to be language prohibiting inclusion of all the projects on the ballots was the issue. Is there any chance that some vagueness of the language could have generated legal action the city wants to avoid? It seems to me that there had to have been some legal advice the city received that resulted in this ballot. Because, otherwise, why change what worked in the past when they had to know the new ballot would generate controversy? I'm not buying that the city has a diabolical plan to use tax money for some project other than what they've announced, simply because of the incredibly bad precedent it would set, and the risk of never passing another MAPS proposal.

Midtowner, I don't even begin to claim to have any legal knowledge. The one thing that I've wondered, however, is whether the fact that there appears to be language prohibiting inclusion of all the projects on the ballots was the issue. Is there any chance that some vagueness of the language could have generated legal action the city wants to avoid? It seems to me that there had to have been some legal advice the city received that resulted in this ballot. Because, otherwise, why change what worked in the past when they had to know the new ballot would generate controversy? I'm not buying that the city has a diabolical plan to use tax money for some project other than what they've announced, simply because of the incredibly bad precedent it would set, and the risk of never passing another MAPS proposal.

It is quite paradoxical that the city would have chosen the path it did because of some perceived possibility because by avoiding one potential issue in the manner they have chosen, they ran full bore into another one.

Art 10, Section 19 of the Constitution, states "Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which the tax is levied. . . " (emphasis added).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Capital improvements" seems to run far afoul of "specify[ing] distinctly" any purpose whatsoever. In fact, it tends to do exactly the opposite by saying that the city reserves the right to do just about any damn thing it wants with the money... arguably "capital improvements" could mean just about anything, possibly even salaries.

Worse still, the argument under Article 10 is much stronger, IMHO, than any argument arising under Article 5 since Article 5's language by its own terms only applies to the legislature, whereas if you'll look at the bolded text above, the language under Article 10 applies to municipalities.

The city's essentially arguing that the Article 5 "single subject" rule applies to municipalities in light of the fact that the Constitution, at least by its own terms makes no provision whatsoever for it applying to municipalities. The city seems to be envisioning some bizzaro-land Supreme Court opinion coming down the pike which would interpret this meaning in while completely ignoring the much more realistic issue that under Article 10, Section 19, something which by its own terms specifically does apply to the city doesn't really mean what it says.

-- tough sell, imho.

That said, I've got my own view of this thing.. maybe there's another. It's not like I've researched this issue as if I was being paid to do it, so I might be missing something. It'd sure as heck be a lot more comforting though if those city attorneys who are actually being paid to research this stuff would cite something specific, because otherwise, the city wanting this vague language for no other reason than the fact that it wants vague language is unsettling indeed.

Another new site by tax payer subsidized Chamber of Commerce. Fantastic.

Another new site by tax payer subsidized Chamber of Commerce. Fantastic.

You say that like it costs thousands of dollars... I just renewed a URL for $17.00, and I created the site for free... Plus, we all know that the Chamber isn't only funded via City contract/agreement. They have dues and donations. What about the poor firefighters who might actually support Maps 3 and have to see their union dues go to supporting the anti-Maps campaign?

Talk about not ready for primetime.


I wonder why the Chamber hasn't put their name on the new site... a site without credits is unreliable...

Yeah, I really don't like to have to root through the WHOIS database just to figure out who owns an anonymous website.

The Chamber not bothering to put their name on the site really doesn't help the credibility problem - at a time when that's desperately needed. Amateurish is one term, others spring to mind. What on earth is going to shake them out of their complacency and take this campaign seriously? And stop patronizing the voters' intelligence?

Just looking at Infrastructure "Facts," can anyone get to "more than a billion dollars of programs passed in 2007"?

$517,250,000 earmarked for infrastructure products by the 2007 bond program"
"$89,755,000 for Parks and Recreational facilities"
"In addition, voters also approved a $180 million bond issue to fund additional projects within Oklahoma City Public School District I-89."

What am I missing?

I wouldn't even mind if they had spun it as close to a billion.

If there were only someone out there. Someone with the skills, knowledge, ability, and the integrety to do a comparision of the two sites, that would be great. (hint, hint.)
Like I said, I have too much news catching up to get done to go very far with this, but I did check to see who owns the domain name -- web sites that don't show up front who the owners/operators are aren't my cup of tea. From WhoIs Search Results (http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=mapsfacts.org&prog_id=godaddy) it is the Chamber. Some detail:



Domain ID:D157570697-LROR
Domain Name:MAPSFACTS.ORG
Created On:11-Nov-2009 23:36:05 UTC
Last Updated On:11-Nov-2009 23:36:11 UTC
Expiration Date:11-Nov-2010 23:36:05 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:43783003-NSIV
Registrant Name:Loyce Turner
Registrant Organization:Greater OKC Chamber

Whoops! On Edit, I see at the bottom of at least one web page there, it does indeed say, "Paid for by the YES for MAPS Coalition" ... so the website is not unattributed as I initially said, above.

Very first problem I see on that site: "Facts: This MAPS proposal is structured the same as previous MAPS proposals and for good reason."

No, it most certainly is not structured the same as previous MAPS proposals.. Do they think we can't go back and look at the previous ballots?

All that site does for me is solidify the FACT that the city is lying to the citizens in order to get a blank check with no oversight and no guarantees about what will be worked on or where the money will actually be used.

No. The project itself is structured the same. But there is a state law against rolling multiple projects onto one ballot. Thus, OKC had to follow state law this time and reword the proposal. So unless you want a court challenge, the ballot will have to be worded as such.

The reason why OKC got away with it before... it was a simple oversight on state law. No one checked to make sure it was legal, but no one challanged it because it didn't occur to anyone to look up the statutes.

I found this letter at :: MAPS Facts :: (http://www.yesformaps.com/MAPSFacts09/Opposition_Facts.html) to be interesting:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/fopletter_11_10.jpg

Whoops! On Edit, I see at the bottom of at least one web page there, it does indeed say, "Paid for by the YES for MAPS Coalition" ... so the website is not unattributed as I initially said, above.

Well they only just got that up there now (along with Opposition Facts and the leaked FOP letter), so at least they figured that out and reduced that particular ownership sketchiness level.

How long before they correct at least the infrastructure "facts"?

I was just watching Channel 4 and they ran a story on the difference in the Ballots. Basically it is illegal to do it the same way we did in 1993 where each element is "spelled out".

It's only illegal if the bundle all the projects into one ballot proposition. It would be completely legal if each project was listed as a separate ballot proposition. This would be a truly democratic way to do this. The present method is known as "log-rolling", all the projects bundled into one proposition. It is legal only because we are not voting to bind the city to these projects, we are voting only to give the city the authority to keep the tax and spend the money on whatever it wants. The MAPS 3 resolution is non-binding, and could be changed at any time by this or a future Council.

A better way would have been to list each project as a separate ballot proposition. Then the citizens could be assured that the projects would be completed, and would be allowed a complete say as to which projects should be completed.

People are saying "we should trust the City". I'm saying, "The City should trust the people to decide about these projects, individually, not as a log-rolled package."

What has changed so much that we can't continue to trust our elected municipal officials to continue making tough discussions for us?

There's a great line in 2012 -- "When the government tells you not to panic, THAT'S THE TIME TO PANIC!" I think that fits the situation -- when the government says "trust us", that's the time to start wondering what is going on.

And not everyone thinks the City Council has been doing such a great job over the last few years.

I found this letter at :: MAPS Facts :: (http://www.yesformaps.com/MAPSFacts09/Opposition_Facts.html) to be interesting:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/fopletter_11_10.jpgDoug, knowing what you know regarding documents, timeframes, dates, offers and counter-offers. Do you believe mapsfacts.org has put out all of the facts as they pertain to the FOP issue?

Doug, knowing what you know regarding documents, timeframes, dates, offers and counter-offers. Do you believe mapsfacts.org has put out all of the facts as they pertain to the FOP issue?

If mapsfacts.org hasn't, you would think that if it were beneficial to them, the notthismaps folks would have.

If mapsfacts.org hasn't, you would think that if it were beneficial to them, the notthismaps folks would have.I would hope they would, and if not, I think they should.

... Find one case which stands for the proposition that municipalities are subject to the single subject rule.
... All signs point to "no."

We're on the same page. I keep thinking though that surely someone who sold that gotta be this way notion to the city fathers is gonna grab a mike and explain how they got to where they got and then I can slap my head and say, danged, I flat out missed that.

My hope chips are truly runnin' low.

Worse, the lil' cynical voice in the lower left corner of the brain is wondering ... why do I do keep hearing Briar Rabbit chuckling?

No. The project itself is structured the same. But there is a state law against rolling multiple projects onto one ballot. Thus, OKC had to follow state law this time and reword the proposal. So unless you want a court challenge, the ballot will have to be worded as such.

The reason why OKC got away with it before... it was a simple oversight on state law. No one checked to make sure it was legal, but no one challanged it because it didn't occur to anyone to look up the statutes.

Citation please?

From everything I can tell, what you just said is simply not true. It may be the party line, but the party line is based on the faulty premise that the single subject rule applies to municipalities. There's no authority for that anywhere.. and further, well, just read the two longish posts of mine on page one of this thread. I don't need to repeat myself.

They really needed to do this. I went to the "anti MAPS" rally this morning and was shocked by the level of mis-information being thrown at the public.

MAPSFACTS.ORG (http://www.mapsfacts.org)Are you saying there is no mis-information being thrown at the public by the City?

We're on the same page. I keep thinking though that surely someone who sold that gotta be this way notion to the city fathers is gonna grab a mike and explain how they got to where they got and then I can slap my head and say, danged, I flat out missed that.

My hope chips are truly runnin' low.

Worse, the lil' cynical voice in the lower left corner of the brain is wondering ... why do I do keep hearing Briar Rabbit chuckling?

Doubtful.

Most Oklahoma citizens are only marginally aware of the existence of a state Constitution.. hell... lawyers for that matter. How often do you see anyone actually cite the Oklahoma Constitution in briefing? For me, it's a rarity.

My cynical voice tells me that since most folks aren't lawyers and most lawyers don't know or don't care enough to say anything in public about this that the public is simply going to take city hall's word for it on this matter and that city hall probably won't clarify their position because there's nothing to clarify. Their position is wrong. It's based upon a faulty reading recent precedent pertaining to the single subject rule (insofar as its application to municipalities vs. the legislature).

At this point, instead of folding, they're doubling down. Even if they know damn well that this ballot measure has some serious constitutional defects, it's highly doubtful anyone will admit it.

If it's struck down, they'll at least be able to run with the revised ballot chanting some sort of mantra about public opinion being on their side.

If it's not struck down, the ballot measure gives the new MAPS III folks maximum flexibility in building these MAPS improvements.

Doug, knowing what you know regarding documents, timeframes, dates, offers and counter-offers. Do you believe mapsfacts.org has put out all of the facts as they pertain to the FOP issue?
No. NotThisMaps (http://nomaps3.com/index.html) does no better.

Neither side has done that, as was hopefully clear enough (at least my opinion concerning the same) in the Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/11/great-maps-3-debate.html) article.

Now, as of yesterday, we've got a new player, Porter Davis, who had the press conference on city hall steps yesterday surrounded by a number of NotThisMaps people dressed up in their NotThisMaps gear. Here's the video: YouTube - Not This Maps - Oklahoma City - Press Conference - 20091124 - Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WXpYqqVw9c)

At about 2:45-3:10 into that video, he says,


If there are any investigative reporters here I would start looking at conflicts of interest. Who owns the property in and around the MAPS projects. * * * I've just been told and I haven't verified it but you might start with who owns this old city airpark just where they [inaudible] proposed convention center."
He got a big hand with that line.

Problem is ... the downtown airpark area isn't part of MAPS 3 and it has never been proposed that the convention center be located there. Just more misinformation.

As I've already said, credibility is a big problem all the way around.

Soooo ... who're you gonna trust?

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ghostbusters-music-video.gif

Why? Because of a potential hotel?
I'm not seeing anything about the Convention hotel on their site, so no, that doesn't have anything to do with my short statement (a more complete post to follow). But since you asked about the hotel, so far the MAPS 3 info hasn't really mentioned if the $280M includes the cost of building the attached hotel. Thought I saw something recently that stated it did, but can't recall where or when. If anyone has the info and can supply, please post. Anyway, this is what the Chamber's report stated:


Hotel Financing – The costs to develop headquarter hotels are significant. There are no examples nationwide of a fully privately-developed convention center headquarter hotel in at least the last five years. Two possible financing scenarios include:

(1) A public sector entity can provide financial subsidies (tax increment financing, public sector construction of parking or other infrastructure, land donation, cash contributions) to a private developer to ensure that the developer can generate a necessary return on investment.

(2) A public sector entity can form a corporation or authority to issue tax exempt debt for the project, typically at rates lower than those available to a private developer. The majority of headquarter hotels funded over the past five years have used this method.

It's not clear if MAPS 3 funding is part of this or not.

No. NotThisMaps (http://nomaps3.com/index.html) does no better.

Neither side has done that, as was hopefully clear enough (at least my opinion concerning the same) in the Doug Dawgz Blog: The Great MAPS 3 Debate (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/11/great-maps-3-debate.html) article.

Now, as of yesterday, we've got a new player, Porter Davis, who had the press conference on city hall steps yesterday surrounded by a number of NotThisMaps people dressed up in their NotThisMaps gear. Here's the video: YouTube - Not This Maps - Oklahoma City - Press Conference - 20091124 - Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WXpYqqVw9c)

At about 2:45-3:10 into that video, he says,


He got a big hand with that line.

Problem is ... the downtown airpark area isn't part of MAPS 3 and it has never been proposed that the convention center be located there. Just more misinformation.

As I've already said, credibility is a big problem all the way around.

Soooo ... who're you gonna trust?

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ghostbusters-music-video.gifEver feel like Michael Corleone?

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

Sure sounds like it....

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

That's funny, cuz I watched yesterday's City Council meeting last night on Channel 20. You are wrong again.

Ever feel like Michael Corleone?
The young one or the old one?

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

The City's internet feed was working... and I watched a bit of the presentation live on Channel 20, so maybe it's your cable that's messed up. :)

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

Excuse me???? Now who's getting desperate? Geez... SCORCHED EARTH, "misinformation", and complete blatant lying seem to be the way of those want to confuse the public.

If you don't like the proposal, then just vote "no". I watched the minutes in the city archives on their website with ease yesterday.

Get a grip, some manners, or stick your head in the sand for the benefit of everyone else who is tired of your mindless rhetoric.

Excuse me???? Now who's getting desperate? Geez... SCORCHED EARTH, "misinformation", and complete blatant lying seem to be the way of those want to confuse the public.

If you don't like the proposal, then just vote "no". I watched the minutes in the city archives on their website with ease yesterday.

Get a grip, some manners, or stick your head in the sand for the benefit of everyone else who is tired of your mindless rhetoric.

You have to consider the source. You may not be acquainted with the source, but believe me, mindless rhetoric is the rule, not the exception.

No. NotThisMaps (http://nomaps3.com/index.html) does no better.

Now, as of yesterday, we've got a new player, Porter Davis, who had the press conference on city hall steps yesterday surrounded by a number of NotThisMaps people dressed up in their NotThisMaps gear. Here's the video: YouTube - Not This Maps - Oklahoma City - Press Conference - 20091124 - Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WXpYqqVw9c)

At about 2:45-3:10 into that video, he says,


Originally Posted by Porter Davis
If there are any investigative reporters here I would start looking at conflicts of interest. Who owns the property in and around the MAPS projects. * * * I've just been told and I haven't verified it but you might start with who owns this old city airpark just where they [inaudible] proposed convention center."

He got a big hand with that line.

Problem is ... the downtown airpark area isn't part of MAPS 3 and it has never been proposed that the convention center be located there. Just more misinformation.

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ghostbusters-music-video.gif

We've heard that parrotted here multiple times. These posters are so in tune with Oklahoma City that they don't even seem to know that the airpark is south of the Oklahoma River, they clearly don't know anything about Core to Shore and they've not truly educated themselves on some of the MAPS issues. For someone with that kind of ignorance to be given a public forum is disheartening. As I've said, these people are so busy being against this, but there's nothing I can see that they're FOR, at least as far as the city is concerned. What are they working to improve? In what way does not passing MAPS make Oklahoma City a better place in which to live?

okay, now i'm convinced that a $777 million capital improvement will include a new Chesapeake HQ downtown, what's not to like about that?

I've decided to tell everyone I know to vote 'yes'

I found this letter at :: MAPS Facts :: (http://www.yesformaps.com/MAPSFacts09/Opposition_Facts.html) to be interesting:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/fopletter_11_10.jpgIt would be nice to see what the City's offer of November 4 looked like.

It surely would, andy157. Maybe one or our police posters could supply a copy?

Fleshing out my initial uncharacteristic, brief post: “The 1st “Fact” under the Convention Center isn’t accurate” near the beginning of the thread

From MAPSFACTS.ORG (http://www.mapsfacts.org/)


Convention Center Facts

Myth: The proposed convention center would not be fully funded by this MAPS.

Ward 5 City Councilor Brian Walters said at a November 13 press conference that MAPS 3 is only “the first phase” in funding for a new convention center and that taxpayers would possibly be forced to pay “another quarter-of-a-billion dollars” to finish the project after MAPS 3 expires. (footnotes omitted)

Fact: This MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center.

The statement made by Councilman Walters is just flat not true. Each of the proposed projects within this MAPS package have been fully budgeted for completion. Since 1993, the City has on every occasion done exactly what it said it would do regarding MAPS. This MAPS is no different.

Let’s start with a look at the “first phase” issue. He did make the statement, but he didn’t originate the concept. It comes from the Chamber’s eight month old Convention report. The report concentrated on the existing challenges faced by the Cox C.C and made a recommendation that a new C.C. be built. Because of the $400M cost, rather than build a “full build out” the City might consider building the C.C. in phases. The 1st phase has the minimum CURRENT space requirements of a Tier 2 City. Again, this is talking about CURRENT needs, if built today. NOT the needs 10 years from now when the Mayor has said numerous times the new C.C. would open. We will probably already be in need of the full, complete “expanded” (Phase 2) C.C. by then.


Therefore, future convention center planning should take into consideration the potential for future expansion. For general planning purposes, convention center expansions tend to target roughly a 50 percent increase in space, however each market is unique and the actual expansion space supported can vary widely on a market to market basis.
If rather than a phased approach to facility development, a full build out (to 300,000 square feet of exhibit space) were pursued, the larger venue would likely operate at very low occupancy levels for an extended period of time. However, there would also be construction cost efficiencies with the larger construction as opposed to two-phased approach.

Then the Mayor himself mentioned Phase 1/Phase 2 long before Mr. Walters:


Q&A with Mick Cornett (Oklahoman, 3/11/09)

Q: The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber released a study Tuesday recommending construction of a $400 million convention center. How do you see this proposal moving forward?

A: First of all, the $400 million number you mentioned is if we pursued both a phase one and two. I think we are more focused on considering a phase one in the short term, which would cost closer to $250 million....

Based on the above & the MAPS 3 C.C. cost is $280M, it appears MAPS 3 C.C. is "Phase 1". Just as Councilman Walter’s said and there will be a Phase 2. The difference between the $400M for the complete C.C. and the $250M is $150M and not “another quarter-of-a-billion dollars”. Not sure where the extra $100M came from but may be factoring in what increased construction costs might be 10 years from now (after Phase 1 is complete).


Now let’s take a look at the funding part:


Convention Center Facts

Oklahoma City has real potential to grow its convention center business. The convention center proposed in MAPS would be the only modern-day convention center in Oklahoma City, and would be complete as funded.
...

Myth: The proposed convention center would not be fully funded by this MAPS. ...

Fact: This MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center.

... Each of the proposed projects within this MAPS package have been fully budgeted for completion....

Really? Not according to the City. No budget has been finalized so to say it is “fully budgeted’ (completed or otherwise) seems to be a stretch. Here is what the City has to say from a 24 page News Release (dated 9/17/09) and reiterated nearly verbatim at City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/summary.html) about the budgeted amounts for the MAPS 3 ‘proposed” projects:


A note regarding cost estimates: Cost estimates for each project are approximate. It is expected that some projects may cost more than estimated, and some may cost less. Just as in the original MAPS, the cost estimates for individual projects are not included in the legal documents, they are merely guides the Mayor and Council use to calculate the necessary length of the tax collection.

Not sure where they come up with the “may cost less” part as not a single one of the original MAPS projects came in under what voters were told. Overall, the original MAPS came in 47.75% over.

From the Gazette: Oklahoma City planning director answers questions about potential Downtown park | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5071/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Russell Claus, City Planning Director (talking about the Park and operating budget, but this applies to the overall budget of MAPS 3)


“Keep in mind that the park design is just at the concept phase and projecting any numbers at this point is very speculative.
None of the MAPS projects have been fully developed.”

If they haven’t been “fully developed” how can the Chamber make the claim it is “fully budgeted”?

Then there was this, originally posted 10-21-2009, 11:27 AM in the MAPS 3 ‘Central park’ Plans not final? thread:
http://www.rezoneokc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/park3.jpg

The final plans for the MAPS 3 ‘Central Park’ implementation have not been set, at least, that is what these statements from a recent Gazette article lead me to believe.

Asst. City Manager Cathy O’Connor on the park:
Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor said the total estimated price tag to the city is $130 million for the parks portions of the “Core to Shore” project.

“It is still a concept plan. It isn’t the final version of the plan — that won’t be done until after the election, if the election is successful,” O’Connor said. “Then we’ll have a much better idea of what everything’s really going to cost.”

And Planning Director Russell Claus:
“these amenities and the associated numbers are extremely conjectural. (This is) based on a very preliminary evaluation of the possible content and functions of the park,” he said.“As such, inclusion of all amenities mentioned, estimates on size and other numbers cited are subject to significant change before they are finalized — a process which will not happen until after a successful vote.”

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/proposed-oklahoma-city-convention-center-will-include-more-space-room-to-grow/article/3419426?custom_click=headlines_widget)
Proposed Oklahoma City Convention Center will include more space, room to grow (Oklahoman, 11/22/09)

Like the other projects in the MAPS 3 plan, there is no final design for the convention center.”

Given that projects are in the conceptual stage and nothing is finalized how can anything be “fully budgeted” (and won’t be until sometime after the vote)?

So it would appear that the Chamber's “Fact” that “[t]his MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center” and “would be complete as funded” isn’t quite the case. Their Fact is a Myth. IMO

Fleshing out my initial uncharacteristic, brief post: “The 1st “Fact” under the Convention Center isn’t accurate” near the beginning of the thread

From MAPSFACTS.ORG (http://www.mapsfacts.org/)



Let’s start with a look at the “first phase” issue. He did make the statement, but he didn’t originate the concept. It comes from the Chamber’s eight month old Convention report. The report concentrated on the existing challenges faced by the Cox C.C and made a recommendation that a new C.C. be built. Because of the $400M cost, rather than build a “full build out” the City might consider building the C.C. in phases. The 1st phase has the minimum CURRENT space requirements of a Tier 2 City. Again, this is talking about CURRENT needs, if built today. NOT the needs 10 years from now when the Mayor has said numerous times the new C.C. would open. We will probably already be in need of the full, complete “expanded” (Phase 2) C.C. by then.



Then the Mayor himself mentioned Phase 1/Phase 2 long before Mr. Walters:



Based on the above & the MAPS 3 C.C. cost is $280M, it appears MAPS 3 C.C. is "Phase 1". Just as Councilman Walter’s said and there will be a Phase 2. The difference between the $400M for the complete C.C. and the $250M is $150M and not “another quarter-of-a-billion dollars”. Not sure where the extra $100M came from but may be factoring in what increased construction costs might be 10 years from now (after Phase 1 is complete).


Now let’s take a look at the funding part:



Really? Not according to the City. No budget has been finalized so to say it is “fully budgeted’ (completed or otherwise) seems to be a stretch. Here is what the City has to say from a 24 page News Release (dated 9/17/09) and reiterated nearly verbatim at City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/summary.html) about the budgeted amounts for the MAPS 3 ‘proposed” projects:



Not sure where they come up with the “may cost less” part as not a single one of the original MAPS projects came in under what voters were told. Overall, the original MAPS came in 47.75% over.

From the Gazette: Oklahoma City planning director answers questions about potential Downtown park | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5071/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Russell Claus, City Planning Director (talking about the Park and operating budget, but this applies to the overall budget of MAPS 3)



If they haven’t been “fully developed” how can the Chamber make the claim it is “fully budgeted”?

Then there was this, originally posted 10-21-2009, 11:27 AM in the MAPS 3 ‘Central park’ Plans not final? thread:

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/proposed-oklahoma-city-convention-center-will-include-more-space-room-to-grow/article/3419426?custom_click=headlines_widget)
Proposed Oklahoma City Convention Center will include more space, room to grow (Oklahoman, 11/22/09)


Given that projects are in the conceptual stage and nothing is finalized how can anything be “fully budgeted” (and won’t be until sometime after the vote)?

So it would appear that the Chamber's “Fact” that “[t]his MAPS will provide all necessary funds for the completion of the proposed convention center” and “would be complete as funded” isn’t quite the case. Their Fact is a Myth. IMOThank you.

Channel 20 refused to show the council meeting yesterday, per Cornett's request. All they showed was an OOOOLD meeting and Cornett telling everyone they should vote for MAPS and why. Calls to Cox and city hall were met with "we're having problems with the video". They're getting desperate.

WHAT THE...!?!?!?!?


That's funny, cuz I watched yesterday's City Council meeting last night on Channel 20. You are wrong again.


The City's internet feed was working... and I watched a bit of the presentation live on Channel 20, so maybe it's your cable that's messed up. :)


Excuse me???? Now who's getting desperate? Geez... SCORCHED EARTH, "misinformation", and complete blatant lying seem to be the way of those want to confuse the public.

If you don't like the proposal, then just vote "no". I watched the minutes in the city archives on their website with ease yesterday.

Get a grip, some manners, or stick your head in the sand for the benefit of everyone else who is tired of your mindless rhetoric.

No need to say any more...

You should be blocked.

WHAT THE...!?!?!?!?

No need to say any more...

You should be blocked.

Again. That would be thrice, IIRC.

Are you saying there is no mis-information being thrown at the public by the City?

You be the judge of that, but this is the level of misinformation that the anti-MAPS goons are throwing out there:


GOT AN EXTRA $930?
MAPS 3 sales tax will cost about $930 for the average OKC resident. About $10 per month for this 93-month project. (Based on an economic analysis conducted by Dr. Mark Snead, OSU, for the Oklahoma City Finance Department).

Mayor Cornett asked OKC residents what they wanted: They said: Transit (light rail, streetcars, etc.) and Infrastructure, including streets. See results on website: MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City (http://www.maps3.org/factsheet.html)

What we’re getting!
OKC’s 3rd convention center (in addition to Cox Convention Center and the Ford Center)
70-acre park downtown. Why? A request by Devon Energy.
Irresponsible destruction of the Union Station Rail Yard---After ignoring thousands of requests to save OKC’s Union Station rail yard from destruction, the OKC Council is asking for our MAPS 3 sales tax money for “a downtown transit hub which will link streetcar, commuter rail and bus systems” – exactly the reason Union Station’s invaluable, irreplaceable rail yard was built in the first place.

VOTE NO – MAPS 3, DECEMBER 8
Citizen Patriots, P.O. Box 19863, OKC 73144

I bolded all the lies. First MAPS won't cost everyone an average $930 a year that's ridiculous. More like $400 for a family of four, but it's not AN INCREASE in the first place so there's "0" extra. Not $930. Second of all this isn't a 3rd convention center, since when did the Ford become a convention center?? 3rd of all the downtown park is not a request by Devon Energy, that is the Myriad Garden renovations, which Devon is paying for themselves. Then the destruction of Union Station's rail yard has nothing to do with MAPS, that's the Crosstown project that ODOT is doing. And Union Station wasn't built to accommodate urban transit in the first place, it was built to accommodate freight. And lastly, I think it's also a lie for this group to call themselves "Citizen Patriots" because patriots don't lie.

So I don't know..I don't think the city is that bad after all.

Spartan, you forgot the diabolical plot by the nefarious Humphreys family to get the convention center built on the site of the downtown airpark. :doh:

That's my personal favorite. I think it's hysterical that these people either have no idea where the airpark is, or they have no idea where the proposed sites for the convention center are, or both. I wonder if they've even driven the area in question at all, much less studied the city's plans on the Core to Shore site.

You be the judge of that, but this is the level of misinformation that the anti-MAPS goons are throwing out there:



I bolded all the lies. First MAPS won't cost everyone an average $930 a year that's ridiculous. More like $400 for a family of four, but it's not AN INCREASE in the first place so there's "0" extra. Not $930. Second of all this isn't a 3rd convention center, since when did the Ford become a convention center?? 3rd of all the downtown park is not a request by Devon Energy, that is the Myriad Garden renovations, which Devon is paying for themselves. Then the destruction of Union Station's rail yard has nothing to do with MAPS, that's the Crosstown project that ODOT is doing. And Union Station wasn't built to accommodate urban transit in the first place, it was built to accommodate freight. And lastly, I think it's also a lie for this group to call themselves "Citizen Patriots" because patriots don't lie.

So I don't know..I don't think the city is that bad after all.I have, and in my judgement the City has put out some mis-information. Here, I'll give you an easy one. The Mayor and Councilman Marrs have both stated Police and Fire have been receiving MAPS 4 KIDS Use Tax. Thats true. They claim the amount is in excess of 60 million dollars. Thats not true. They go on to claim that P&F have been getting the tax since 2001. Thats not true. Here's the funny part. How did the City spend MAPS 4 KIDS Use Tax on the P&F in 2001 when the tax went into effect 1/1/2002? So I'll ask you a different question. Is it OK to put out mis-information irregardless of who's putting it out as long as it is kept below a certain level?

Spartan, you forgot the diabolical plot by the nefarious Humphreys family to get the convention center built on the site of the downtown airpark. :doh:

That's my personal favorite. I think it's hysterical that these people either have no idea where the airpark is, or they have no idea where the proposed sites for the convention center are, or both. I wonder if they've even driven the area in question at all, much less studied the city's plans on the Core to Shore site.

I would rather it go there than against Shields Blvd LOL. I would agree with you're assessment that it's questionable if these people have ever been downtown in a long time, or if they even get out very much.

Thats not true. They go on to claim that P&F have been getting the tax since 2001. Thats not true. Here's the funny part. How did the City spend MAPS 4 KIDS Use Tax on the P&F in 2001 when the tax went into effect 1/1/2002?


since  [sins] Show IPA
in the period following the time when: He has written once since he left.

Since 2001 would be 1/1/2002 and thereafter... so this would be true.

Since 2001 would be 1/1/2002 and thereafter... so this would be true.Thats pretty slick. The first time they received the money was in 2007. But I guess it doesn't matter since 07 came sometime after 01.

Just using the words you typed andy.

Just using the words you typed andy.I guess you got me. I didn't include this earlier, but if they claim a figure of 60 million when the fact is the actual amount is less than 1/2 that. Is that mis-information, or did I miss another play on words?

I guess you got me. I didn't include this earlier, but if they claim a figure of 60 million when the fact is the actual amount is less than 1/2 that. Is that mis-information, or did I miss another play on words?

Dunno Andy. You first said the tax went into effect in 2002. Then you said it was 2007. Now you're making claims about when and how much money was received.

I don't actually know what is true here... It's just that what you're saying doesn't quite compute.