If we consolidated the county sheriff's office and the city police department we'd have a larger, more efficient force. There wouldn't be the ridiculous duplication of services and waste of money, and we'd probably get a lot more bang for our buck.

Instead of trying to decimate MAPS 3 why don't our city's brave public safety workers advocate for consolidating the city and county? That would really be a big benefit.

You know whats so funny Spartan, that is the last thing the Unions would want. Consolidation means efficiency, and efficiency means eliminating duplicate jobs.

This Union Leadership is doing their members an incredible disservice with their lack of basic political skills.

Cornett has staked his immediate career in local municipal politics and has given up a prime opportunity to run for congress. He is a big believer in consolidation.

If these inept Union Leaders are successful in killing MAPS, my guess is that the iron political hammer will come down and consolidation will begin.

I'm just getting ready for the argument.. "Oh no we can't consolidate the city and county, the county provides invaluable support to areas of Oklahoma County not in OKC city limits."

Like all 2 square miles that aren't incorporated..

I have yet to see how defeating MAPS will do anyone any good. It doesn't put a penny more in the pockets of policemen and firemen. It reduces opportunities to increase sales tax revenue which does put money in the pockets of police and firemen. I suspect it's going to make the city even more intransigent, as then they will have absolutely nothing to lose by refusing to negotiate. And, it's created bad blood between the police and fire unions and those supporting MAPS. The bad press is only going to escalate if MAPS doesn't pass, as people who aren't as involved figure out why it didn't. You may well see organized opposition to raises for them that are on a public ballot.

The other thing I think needs to be consolidated is EMSA and the fire department. It's completely ridiculous to have four responders to every call. Make EMSA a part of the fire department and send 2 people out on every call. We're paying for these services, and there are very few instances when four people are needed for any emergency. Car accidents are sometimes the exception, but just as more than one firetruck is sent to some fires, more than one ambulance could be dispatched to an accident, if necessary. Many calls aren't true emergencies. Some percentage of them are for people who aren't resuscitatable or who will die very shortly after reaching the hospital. We're told the firemen reach the homes much faster than EMSA, and so it makes sense to have them as first and only responders, and adding EMSA to their department would probably solve the manpower issue.

Consolidation sounds like an excellent idea to me, if we have duplication of services. Why should we as taxpayers support waste and inefficiency, if it exists?

I have yet to see how defeating MAPS will do anyone any good. It doesn't put a penny more in the pockets of policemen and firemen. It reduces opportunities to increase sales tax revenue which does put money in the pockets of police and firemen. I suspect it's going to make the city even more intransigent, as then they will have absolutely nothing to lose by refusing to negotiate. And, it's created bad blood between the police and fire unions and those supporting MAPS. The bad press is only going to escalate if MAPS doesn't pass, as people who aren't as involved figure out why it didn't. You may well see organized opposition to raises for them that are on a public ballot.

The other thing I think needs to be consolidated is EMSA and the fire department. It's completely ridiculous to have four responders to every call. Make EMSA a part of the fire department and send 2 people out on every call. We're paying for these services, and there are very few instances when four people are needed for any emergency. Car accidents are sometimes the exception, but just as more than one firetruck is sent to some fires, more than one ambulance could be dispatched to an accident, if necessary. Many calls aren't true emergencies. Some percentage of them are for people who aren't resuscitatable or who will die very shortly after reaching the hospital. We're told the firemen reach the homes much faster than EMSA, and so it makes sense to have them as first and only responders.

Consolidation sounds like an excellent idea to me, if we have duplication of services. Why should we as taxpayers support waste and inefficiency, if it exists?

I second that, betts.

If we consolidated the county sheriff's office and the city police department we'd have a larger, more efficient force. There wouldn't be the ridiculous duplication of services and waste of money, and we'd probably get a lot more bang for our buck.

Instead of trying to decimate MAPS 3 why don't our city's brave public safety workers advocate for consolidating the city and county? That would really be a big benefit.The Firefighters Union has been an advocate, and they supported the consolidation of metro Fire Departments. You need to take your plea to those Municipalities situated within the County. They're your opposition.

You know whats so funny Spartan, that is the last thing the Unions would want. Consolidation means efficiency, and efficiency means eliminating duplicate jobs.

This Union Leadership is doing their members an incredible disservice with their lack of basic political skills.

Cornett has staked his immediate career in local municipal politics and has given up a prime opportunity to run for congress. He is a big believer in consolidation.

If these inept Union Leaders are successful in killing MAPS, my guess is that the iron political hammer will come down and consolidation will begin.See Urban this is just one more example that you don't know what your talking about.

I have yet to see how defeating MAPS will do anyone any good. It doesn't put a penny more in the pockets of policemen and firemen. It reduces opportunities to increase sales tax revenue which does put money in the pockets of police and firemen. I suspect it's going to make the city even more intransigent, as then they will have absolutely nothing to lose by refusing to negotiate. And, it's created bad blood between the police and fire unions and those supporting MAPS. The bad press is only going to escalate if MAPS doesn't pass, as people who aren't as involved figure out why it didn't. You may well see organized opposition to raises for them that are on a public ballot.

The other thing I think needs to be consolidated is EMSA and the fire department. It's completely ridiculous to have four responders to every call. Make EMSA a part of the fire department and send 2 people out on every call. We're paying for these services, and there are very few instances when four people are needed for any emergency. Car accidents are sometimes the exception, but just as more than one firetruck is sent to some fires, more than one ambulance could be dispatched to an accident, if necessary. Many calls aren't true emergencies. Some percentage of them are for people who aren't resuscitatable or who will die very shortly after reaching the hospital. We're told the firemen reach the homes much faster than EMSA, and so it makes sense to have them as first and only responders, and adding EMSA to their department would probably solve the manpower issue.

Consolidation sounds like an excellent idea to me, if we have duplication of services. Why should we as taxpayers support waste and inefficiency, if it exists?What do you know. Betts here is something that you, the Firefighters, and the Union agree upon. EMS transport should indeed be transfered to the Fire Department

The Firefighters Union has been an advocate, and they supported the consolidation of metro Fire Departments. You need to take your plea to those Municipalities situated within the County. They're your opposition.

This is an argument I have aimed at the police unions, not the fire union. Read my blog here where I go into full detail in a rant about how the city PD and sheriff need to be consolidated ASAP.

A Downtown ontheRange: Radical public safety idea: consolidate city/county (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/11/radical-public-safety-idea-consolidate.html)

As for the FD most of us that have been paying attention to the news for a while already know that they've done a good job trying to eliminate duplication of services. They've gone above and beyond.

There isn't a county fire department in the first place so there isn't a duplication at the same jurisdictions, but the FD has still gone to nearby towns and consolidated there. Great idea. Bravo.

Perhaps after police and sheriff are consolidated we could go to nearby towns and suburbs and try and get them on board with a consolidated metro police force. The only suburbs that need an independent, separate police force are (maybe) Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, and MWC..and that's it. I suppose you can go ahead and add the suburbs that are further-out too, like Mustang, Newcastle, Choctaw, Piedmont, etc etc..

The bottom line though is that my proposal is about the county sheriff and the city police department. Why are making this debate about something else, as we have with everything MAPS 3 related so far?

What do you know. Betts here is something that you, the Firefighters, and the Union agree upon. EMS transport should indeed be transfered to the Fire Department

That's the deal, andy. I've said again and again and again that I'm not against police and firefighters. I'm vehemently opposed to your current methods, however.

I've already written the mayor and outlined precisely what I wrote above. I will do so with the city council as well.

This is an argument I have aimed at the police unions, not the fire union. Read my blog here where I go into full detail in a rant about how the city PD and sheriff need to be consolidated ASAP.

A Downtown ontheRange: Radical public safety idea: consolidate city/county (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/11/radical-public-safety-idea-consolidate.html)

As for the FD most of us that have been paying attention to the news for a while already know that they've done a good job trying to eliminate duplication of services. They've gone above and beyond.

There isn't a county fire department in the first place so there isn't a duplication at the same jurisdictions, but the FD has still gone to nearby towns and consolidated there. Great idea. Bravo.

Perhaps after police and sheriff are consolidated we could go to nearby towns and suburbs and try and get them on board with a consolidated metro police force. The only suburbs that need an independent, separate police force are (maybe) Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, and MWC..and that's it. I suppose you can go ahead and add the suburbs that are further-out too, like Mustang, Newcastle, Choctaw, Piedmont, etc etc..

The bottom line though is that my proposal is about the county sheriff and the city police department. Why are making this debate about something else, as we have with everything MAPS 3 related so far?If you already knew about Fire, sorry I wasn't aware of that. I don't read your blog.

This is an argument I have aimed at the police unions, not the fire union. Read my blog here where I go into full detail in a rant about how the city PD and sheriff need to be consolidated ASAP.

A Downtown ontheRange: Radical public safety idea: consolidate city/county (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/11/radical-public-safety-idea-consolidate.html)

As for the FD most of us that have been paying attention to the news for a while already know that they've done a good job trying to eliminate duplication of services. They've gone above and beyond.

There isn't a county fire department in the first place so there isn't a duplication at the same jurisdictions, but the FD has still gone to nearby towns and consolidated there. Great idea. Bravo.

Perhaps after police and sheriff are consolidated we could go to nearby towns and suburbs and try and get them on board with a consolidated metro police force. The only suburbs that need an independent, separate police force are (maybe) Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, and MWC..and that's it. I suppose you can go ahead and add the suburbs that are further-out too, like Mustang, Newcastle, Choctaw, Piedmont, etc etc..

The bottom line though is that my proposal is about the county sheriff and the city police department. Why are making this debate about something else, as we have with everything MAPS 3 related so far?Who said anything about MAPS

If you already knew about Fire, sorry I wasn't aware of that. I don't read your blog.

Well maybe you should. :bright_id

That's the deal, andy. I've said again and again and again that I'm not against police and firefighters. I'm vehemently opposed to your current methods, however.

I've already written the mayor and outlined precisely what I wrote above. I will do so with the city council as well.Betts lets be honest here. What you oppose is opposition.

Let's get straight who is the opposition and who is the proponency here. The debate at hand, that we are voting on DECEMBER 8th is MAPS 3 and nothing else. Not a public safety issue.

Let's get straight who is the opposition and who is the proponency here. The debate at hand, that we are voting on DECEMBER 8th is MAPS 3 and nothing else. Not a public safety issue.Now I'm confused, I thought the debate at hand here was over the issue dealing with the consolidation of Public Safety.

Betts lets be honest here. What you oppose is opposition.

No, I oppose opposition for what I consider the wrong reasons. I don't think it's right for policemen and firemen to make their issues with city government affect private citizens. I don't think it's right for policemen and firemen to campaign against MAPS as an organized unit because you're unhappy with the mayor and the city council. Again, we're collateral damage, and I see no concern for how the failure of MAPS to pass will affect the people in Oklahoma City. Sorry, but that's how I feel, and I think there are a fair number of people who agree with me.

Look what you unions have done..you've made it confusing. Here are the only conclusions you're allowed to come to:

The debate at hand: MAPS 3
The sidetrack diversion: Public safety wants mo' $$$
The proponency: MAPS 3 supporters
The opposition: MAPS 3 opponents AND public safety, seemingly
The solution to the opposition: County consolidation and creating more city revenue
The end conclusion: Vote yes on Dec 8th

.

Instead of trying to decimate MAPS 3 why don't our city's brave public safety workers advocate for consolidating the city and county? That would really be a big benefit.

I believe this is where MAPS was first mentioned.

What do you know. Betts here is something that you, the Firefighters, and the Union agree upon. EMS transport should indeed be transfered to the Fire Department

As this is a consolidation of services thread, and this is one of the few actual consolidation posts, let's come back around to it. Andy, in your estimation, what are the three biggest impediments to rolling EMSA and FD into one organizational structure, and how best could those impediments be resolved?

Spartan, not ignoring the cop side of consolidation. However, I just canna imagine ever seeing Whetsel or the Co Commish''s come on board with the concept unless it folded every municipal PD in the county under the sheriff's authority, and that's just not likely to be a party we'll ever see the lads in blue, grey and/or khaki ever pop a bottle of bubbly over..

Indianapolis voted in UNIGOV many years ago:

Unigov
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Unigov is the name adopted by the city of Indianapolis to describe its consolidated city-county government, adopted in 1970 by act of the Indiana state legislature.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Excluded cities
3 Included towns
4 Political implications
4.1 Other city–county consolidations
5 References
6 External links


[edit] Background
Indianapolis was intentionally surveyed and founded as the capital of the US state of Indiana. Given the state of urban planning in 1821, little thought was given to the growth of the city. Original planners were of the opinion that it would never grow beyond its original square mile (2.6 km²) layout (still known as "the Mile Square"). Contrary to their belief, Marion County soon was filled with small communities with connections to or with businesses that had formed to take advantage of Indianapolis's location midway between Chicago, Illinois and both Cincinnati, Ohio and Louisville, Kentucky. City growth happened in fits and starts, and it was possible in some areas to leave and re-enter Indianapolis while traveling in a straight line. The movement of affluent citizens to more fashionable suburbs, especially to the north of the city limits, accelerated into full white flight in the period after World War II. While this sprawl was generally within Marion County, it hastened the decay of the city itself.

Unigov was proposed in the late 1960s by then mayor, now Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind) to address these problems and a number of other related issues. In order to support Unigov, a compromise was arranged; the cities of Beech Grove, Lawrence, Southport, and Speedway each maintained limited autonomy, with their own police forces, school systems, and mayors (except Speedway); in addition, fire service and school districts were maintained at their pre-Unigov borders, and some towns otherwise incorporated into the city were permitted to maintain independent police forces. Nevertheless, the excluded cities are also part of Indianpolis-Marion County and are thus represented within Unigov's legislative body, known as the City-County Council. This is necessary because a number of services and governmental responsibilities are delegated by the state of Indiana to county-level government; these services and responsibilities include road maintenance, natural resource management, civil ordiances (zoning, flood development) etc. In addition to voting for the mayors and councils of their respective cities and towns, residents are also able to vote for the Mayor of Indianapolis, plus a City-County Council member, and the four at-large council members. This arrangement was passed because residents are obligated to pay many county-wide taxes and because the powers of the Mayor of Indianapolis extend to the entire county.[1]

[edit] Excluded cities
The cities of Beech Grove, Lawrence, and Southport, and the town of Speedway are known as "excluded cities," and retain government autonomy in most respects. They elect their own city officials and city councils. They also are represented on the City-County Council and vote for the Mayor of Indianapolis, since these countywide officials have taxing and other powers over the whole county.

[edit] Included towns
Several towns that existed outside the city limits were incorporated into Unigov, but elected to retain some measure of autonomy. Most of these towns hold elections for Town Council and Clerk-Treasurer. The town governments have taxing authority, and several continue to appoint their own police departments, maintain their own streets, and perform various other functions independently of the City of Indianapolis[2]. However, they cannot pass any ordinance that conflicts with, or permits a lesser standard than, any City-County ordinance.[3] The included towns are:

Clermont
Crows Nest
Homecroft
Meridian Hills
North Crows Nest
Rocky Ripple
Spring Hill
Warren Park
West Newton
Williams Creek
Wynnedale
[edit] Political implications
For many years, the incorporation of the city's suburbs was seen as working to the political benefit of the Republican Party, which held the mayor's office from the election of Richard Lugar in 1967 until the election of Democrat Bart Peterson in 1999. Democrats gained a one-seat majority on the City-County Council for the first time in citywide elections in 2003.

Facing a budget crisis, Peterson made a proposal to eliminate some remaining duplication, dubbed "Indianapolis Works!". He claimed it would eliminate remaining duplication, while opponents saw it as an effort to further consolidate the power of the Democratic Party in Marion County. The extension of city government was now seen as benefiting the Democrats, who had made many gains (as they did nationally) in the inner-ring suburbs, many more of which are included within the boundaries of the city than in many comparable metropolitan areas.

In December, 2005, the City-County Council approved a merger of the Indianapolis Police Department and the Marion County Sheriff's Department, creating the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, headed by the Marion County Sheriff [4].

In the 2007 municipal elections, the Republican party, led by Gregory A. Ballard, recaptured the Mayor's office and also won back a majority of the City-County Council. One of the planks of Ballard's campaign platform was that the police department needed to be under the responsibility of the Mayor, and not the Sheriff. In February, 2008, the new GOP-led council gave the authority over the county-wide Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to the Mayor, leaving Sheriff Frank J. Anderson with authority over the county jail, protection of City-County buildings and the traditional roles of tax collection and paper serving, but left him as the only Sheriff in Indiana without territory to protect.

[edit] Other city–county consolidations
Under the Unigov provision of Indiana Law, City-County consolidation is automatic when a city's population exceeds the threshold for qualification as a so-called First Class City[5]. When the Unigov provision was enacted, the First Class City population threshold was 250,000; which Indianapolis easily met in 1970. The next most populous city was Fort Wayne with a population of 174,000; so Indianapolis was the only city impacted by the legislation.

By 2006, Fort Wayne nearly met the threshold for designation as a First Class City as it annexed the populous portions of Aboite Township[6]. However, a pre-emptive legislative change in 2004 raised the population requirements for a First Class City from 250,000 to 600,000, which ensured Indianapolis' status as the only First Class City in Indiana.[7]. As a result, any foreseeable city-county consolidation in Indiana will be voluntary rather than automatic [8]

[edit] References

I have been a proponent of consolidation for years. While we are at it, a lot of school districts in smaller counties could easily be consolitated to save money. Of course, a few administrators may lose their jobs but the money saved could be used to hire additional teachers---just like the money saved with the public safety consolidation could be used to hire additional police, fire, and to staff the county jail.

I have been a proponent of consolidation for years. While we are at it, a lot of school districts in smaller counties could easily be consolitated to save money. Of course, a few administrators may lose their jobs but the money saved could be used to hire additional teachers---just like the money saved with the public safety consolidation could be used to hire additional police, fire, and to staff the county jail.

This has been my thought for years, as well. Further, OK has numerous small but poor colleges. How about consolidating the operation of these schools into the OU, OSU, UCO and Jr. College systems? The duplication in all of these entities is a tremendous waste of money that could be used raising teacher pay, bringing buildings into the 21st century and having enough school supplies for all of our students.

There are certainly a lot of wastes of money in Oklahoma it would seem.

While, we're at it, does OK really need 77 counties? CA has San Bernadino County that is twice the size of the state of CT. OK could easily pare down to 15-20.

Well let's get back on subject here. I really think that there's a lot of benefits to be gained from city/county consolidation and this could be much more of a solution for fixing our public safety woes (that I wasn't aware of until recently) than defeating MAPS 3.

The Oklahoma County has 186 full-time commissioned police officers (not including support services and part-time) so giving Edmond their share of 1/10th of Oklahoma County, and MWC their share too, would 150 NEW police officers (transfers from the County Sheriff) constitute a significant personnel hike? I mean they would probably have to be trained to meet the standard of the OKC PD, but yes, that would probably work sufficiently.

While, we're at it, does OK really need 77 counties? CA has San Bernadino County that is twice the size of the state of CT. OK could easily pare down to 15-20.

This goes right along my question of "Do we really need 537 school districts?" We could still keep school buildings open, we just close administrative centers and eliminate administrative jobs.

In my opinion you need to at least serve 500 students to be considered a school district. If you do not have serve that many, your school stays open and you become part of a county school district. Trimming the number of public districts down to 100-150 would create a huge surplus of cash that could be distrubuted to the schools for infastructure, learning materials and teacher pay. You could also look at relocating/replacing schools that were using buildings too large or too outdated for their needs.

School district consolidation is the third rail of Oklahoma politics. The mere mention of that issue outside of the Oklahoma or Tulsa MSAs will result in a great deal of raucous. It shouldn't be any shock to you that being anti-consolidation is actually in the platform, mentioned prominently by both political parties.

School district consolidation is the third rail of Oklahoma politics. The mere mention of that issue outside of the Oklahoma or Tulsa MSAs will result in a great deal of raucous. It shouldn't be any shock to you that being anti-consolidation is actually in the platform, mentioned prominently by both political parties.

Oh it would probably have to be something done by someone who doesn't have a future in politics or ordered by a court somehow. Its just an observation of complete wastefulness in our government.

... Trimming the number of public districts down to 100-150 would create a huge surplus of cash that could be distrubuted to the schools ....

Sorry to cut off your sentence, but if consolidation were to occur, the funds no longer needed would not necessarily be diverted into other aspects of education. Possible not even likely to be diverted into other aspects of education.

Other pet projects ... perhaps.
Offset shortfalls tied to already existing cuts in tax rates ... perhaps.
Utilized elsewhere inside the education system ... perhaps, but I wouldn't bank on it absent first stocking the capitol's 4th floor with a much higher percentage of highly pro-education folks.

EMSA is the smart ones. There was a story in the news a month or so back that they actually anticipated that they would be facing a shortage, worked to subvert it, and are now operating at full capacity, all while employing more people and paying the ones they have more.

If anything, I think the city could look to them and how they do things. If the city tossed EMSA officials for fire officials, it'd probably hurt that.

The problem with trying to consolidate them in OKC FD would be that their service area goes beyond Oklahoma County. If you look at their map (http://www.emsaonline.com/maps.html) the services areas on the edge of EMSA's range are Piedmont (Kingfisher/Canadian County), Yukon (Canadian County), Mustang (Canadian County), Valley Brook (Oklahoma County), Arcadia (Oklahoma County) and Edmond (Oklahoma and a small shave of Logan). That's well beyond the range we'd expect OKC FD to cover.

I think this talk is a waste of time. I wouldn't care either way. Together or not. You obviously don't know how many additional deputies there are...not many...

You think the Sheriff is going to ever do that? LOL...

A question, if you consolidated police and sheriff's, who would be in charge? It may seem like a minor point, but you have to consider that one is an elected official and the other isn't. That'd make a significant difference.

Advantages and disadvantages to both an elected and career official, but given the average voter, I think I'd lean toward the official who has risen through the ranks.

Advantages and disadvantages to both an elected and career official, but given the average voter, I think I'd lean toward the official who has risen through the ranks.

See, I'd be the exact opposite, I'd want the official who could be changed by the people who are they are supposedly serving if we thought they were doing a bad job. Sheriffs all have to get proper training anyways.

That's definitely the advantage of an elected official. I'm just not sure if the voters pay enough attention to the job done by these officials to make a good decision. At least they're more high profile than a judge. I'm always embarrrassed by how little I know about the judges on the ballot.

That's definitely the advantage of an elected official. I'm just not sure if the voters pay enough attention to the job done by these officials to make a good decision. At least they're more high profile than a judge. I'm always embarrrassed by how little I know about the judges on the ballot.

I think they know generally whether they are for or against how police act, and holding the person on top accountable is a good way to respond to it. If they aren't hearing much about police, then it's more a sign of good work done.

I think they know generally whether they are for or against how police act, and holding the person on top accountable is a good way to respond to it. If they aren't hearing much about police, then it's more a sign of good work done.

You're probably right. Regardless, I do think that consolidation is something that should be at least entertained. I don't have the knowledge to know how one would go about doing that, or even if it could be made to work, but the concept seems like a good one. I would think there is some duplication of services.

You're probably right. Regardless, I do think that consolidation is something that should be at least entertained. I don't have the knowledge to know how one would go about doing that, or even if it could be made to work, but the concept seems like a good one. I would think there is some duplication of services.

Maybe some, from what I see Sheriff's do better at not duplicating police services for the police area aside from the occasional sobriety check point in OKC city limits.

The big duplication seems to come at the OKCFD and EMSA level, but I think the problem there is that EMSA is better suited for transport and covering a wide area while the FD is needed for getting people out of dangerous situations. It'd be hard to figure out a way to avoid calling both unless you're willing to risk lives to do it.

Betts, I am so sorry that you don't like the way Maps3 or more correctly Maps5 is being opposed. Really Betts, Really! Is OKC going to be some different place than it is today if Maps5 fails? Is everyone going to hang their hat on what could have been? I dont think so. I bet we will have another Maps proposal within a couple of years. Much the same way people are telling us to make due with what we have. I say OKC will make due with what we are a Big League city NOW!!!!!

Mike, have you ever lived anywhere else? Is it fine to be satisfied with what we have? Could we be better? Not only yes, but, hell yes. For a city this size, what we have is marginal. Go visit Nashville, go visit Salt Lake City, go visit Portland, Kansas City, even Memphis. Minneapolis, Denver, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Indianapolis. We are BARELY a big league city.

We're hanging on by our fingernails in comparison to all of them. So, we should just stop and say what we have is fine, when for a few pennies a day we can make this a signficantly better place to live? If MAPS 3 fails, no, it's not going to be different. But why on earth wouldn't we want it to be better? How much money do most of us waste a day on things we don't really need or enjoy. You spend more on a coke at 7-11 than MAPS will cost the average citizen, by a long shot. You're not willing to give up a fifth of the cost of one coca-cola a day to make this a better place in which to live?

And you blithely say we will have another MAPS proposal in a couple of years. Sure about that? What makes you think it will be better than the one on the ballot now, if it even happens? Then, we're two years further behind. We have no mass transit to speak of, our convention center is older and shabbier than ever, the Core to Shore area stays a blighted, decaying eyesore.

Sorry, but I'm voting to spend those few pennies a day to not keep the momentum going as it is, but to jumpstart it.

My daughter was home from Chicago for Thanksgiving, and one of my friends asked her if she had any plans to move back to OKC. She looked at her and started to laugh. When she'd finished laughing, her first comment was, "Why on earth would I do that? What does Oklahoma City have for me?" She lives in an urban neighborhood filled with retail, restaurants and nightlife. She doesn't drive a car, riding the El or the bus. She has multiple sports, artistic and other leisure time activities available to her.

I would like to see Oklahoma City become a place people are moving to, not moving from. I'd like to see us have things that keep our young college graduates here, and that entice others to move here. We've made tremendous strides with MAPS, MAPS for Kids and MAPS for the Ford Center. But, we were so far behind to begin with that we cannot stop now. Why should we wait 2 years, when we can start now?

Mike, have you ever lived anywhere else? Is it fine to be satisfied with what we have? Could we be better? Not only yes, but, hell yes. For a city this size, what we have is marginal. Go visit Nashville, go visit Salt Lake City, go visit Portland, Kansas City, even Memphis. Minneapolis, Denver, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Indianapolis. We are BARELY a big league city.

We're hanging on by our fingernails in comparison to all of them. So, we should just stop and say what we have is fine, when for a few pennies a day we can make this a signficantly better place to live? If MAPS 3 fails, no, it's not going to be different. But why on earth wouldn't we want it to be better? How much money do most of us waste a day on things we don't really need or enjoy. You spend more on a coke at 7-11 than MAPS will cost the average citizen, by a long shot. You're not willing to give up a fifth of the cost of one coca-cola a day to make this a better place in which to live?

And you blithely say we will have another MAPS proposal in a couple of years. Sure about that? What makes you think it will be better than the one on the ballot now, if it even happens? Then, we're two years further behind. We have no mass transit to speak of, our convention center is older and shabbier than ever, the Core to Shore area stays a blighted, decaying eyesore.

Sorry, but I'm voting to spend those few pennies a day to not keep the momentum going as it is, but to jumpstart it.

My daughter was home from Chicago for Thanksgiving, and one of my friends asked her if she had any plans to move back to OKC. She looked at her and started to laugh. When she'd finished laughing, her first comment was, "Why on earth would I do that? What does Oklahoma City have for me?" She lives in an urban neighborhood filled with retail, restaurants and nightlife. She doesn't drive a car, riding the El or the bus. She has multiple sports, artistic and other leisure time activities available to her.

I would like to see Oklahoma City become a place people are moving to, not moving from. I'd like to see us have things that keep our young college graduates here, and that entice others to move here. We've made tremendous strides with MAPS, MAPS for Kids and MAPS for the Ford Center. But, we were so far behind to begin with that we cannot stop now. Why should we wait 2 years, when we can start now?Betts I'm not Mike, well I am, but a different one. Anyway, you say that you would like to see OKC become a place people are moving to, not from. Have we had a decrease in population within the last 5 years, 10 years? If so then fine, if not why would you say that, I'm just curious?

This has been my thought for years, as well. Further, OK has numerous small but poor colleges. How about consolidating the operation of these schools into the OU, OSU, UCO and Jr. College systems? The duplication in all of these entities is a tremendous waste of money that could be used raising teacher pay, bringing buildings into the 21st century and having enough school supplies for all of our students.

Unfortunately, as I said with primary and secondary school consolidation, rural constituencies rule the roost at the state capitol. They'll protect these rural programs and even expand them because their job is not to do what's best for the state, but for Ada, Enid, Woodward, Talequah, etc.

UCO, while technically a regional school, I think at 16,000 students deserves to stand apart in any debate over higher-ed reform with regard to regional universities. In fact, if other schools are consolidated, there should be enough resources available to make UCO into the state's third research school. They're trending that way anyway.

I also wouldn't support actually closing any facilities. We need to make higher ed available for all Oklahomans. Maybe someday, if distance learning ever becomes worthwhile, we could stand to close some rural campuses, but those schools do provide valuable services and graduate thousands of kids every year who likely wouldn't have graduated had the only education options been in OKC and Tulsa.

Unfortunately, as I said with primary and secondary school consolidation, rural constituencies rule the roost at the state capitol. They'll protect these rural programs and even expand them because their job is not to do what's best for the state, but for Ada, Enid, Woodward, Talequah, etc.

As I said earlier, I know its pie-in-the-sky thinking because of the political and economic ramifications of the action, but its an illustration of inglorious waste of our taxpayer money.


UCO, while technically a regional school, I think at 16,000 students deserves to stand apart in any debate over higher-ed reform with regard to regional universities. In fact, if other schools are consolidated, there should be enough resources available to make UCO into the state's third research school. They're trending that way anyway.

If OK were similar to a state like CO where the Univ. of Colorado is overcrowded and has no room to expand, I might be in favor of this. However, OU and OSU aren't in this situation and the economic realities today are that research universities are becoming so expensive, few can afford to send their kids to them without some form of scholarship. The alternatives are commuter schools such as UCO, Jr. Colleges and for-profit schools.

IMO, there should be no more than 4 college entities in the state. Outlying campuses should be fitted in such a way that they are all video and electronically connected to the main campuses. This way, courses taught by profs at the main campuses could be beamed to the outlying locations.


I also wouldn't support actually closing any facilities. We need to make higher ed available for all Oklahomans. Maybe someday, if distance learning ever becomes worthwhile, we could stand to close some rural campuses, but those schools do provide valuable services and graduate thousands of kids every year who likely wouldn't have graduated had the only education options been in OKC and Tulsa.

You probably wouldn't need to close many of them but significant changes should be made. I think I read somewhere that OK has more colleges per capita than any other state - yet all of them are mediocre academically. To consolidate and eliminate the inefficiencies would save millions that could go to professor pay and to otherwise improve academics.

Betts I'm not Mike, well I am, but a different one. Anyway, you say that you would like to see OKC become a place people are moving to, not from. Have we had a decrease in population within the last 5 years, 10 years? If so then fine, if not why would you say that, I'm just curious?

Population is tricky, as you've got in and out migration, as well as births and deaths. So, what I looked at was relative rank in the country, based upon size. In 2000, Oklahoma City was the 30th largest city in the US. In 2007 it was the 31st largest city. So, although there hasn't been an actual decrease in population, there clearly has been no massive increase in population, relative to other cities. That implies that either other cities are having higher birth rates, lower death rates, more people are moving into them or fewer people are moving out. There may be sophisticated population analyses that tease out which is happening in which cities, but when you've got multiple variables, it can be difficult to determine precisely what is affecting population.