I can't but wonder if the recent events in Bricktown and the overflow of emotion related to city officials and their response would have possible ramifications of any possible future MAPS ideas. Might be hard to sell future MAPS projects if the recent violence issues are not resolved in a timely and workable fashion. You think?

Yes, I agree.

There has been growing complaints that MAPS is too downtown oriented but the counter argument has always been that downtown is for everyone.

Yet, when a big segment of the population wants to gather there, the rug is pulled out. And after the billions of investment, many will see downtown as unsafe.


I hope with time and lots of other positive events that this is largely forgotten but you know a certain percentage of the population will use it against any future downtown public improvements.

It is certainly a possibility should this be the start of more and more high profile criminal activity down there, but as of now any future MAP's program would be judged on the fundamentals of the projects themselves.

I was actually a bit heartened to see so many people clamoring for Thunder Alley. That shows that most people are not freaked out by one event, independent of how the city handled it. Wasn't there a housing study that showed that 86% of people in this city frequent downtown over some period of time, which is way higher than the national average? Yeah, its going to take more than one thing to get me worried. Most people understand that this is a big city and crime happens. And as much as I hate to say this, people had collective ADD and will probably forget about the shooting in 6 months.

The crime issues in Bricktown are a separate issue and could affect businesses in that area. But I don't see this as derailing downtown's success. A similar uptick in crime happened in the summer of 2006, and was more ore less muffed out so I will give the city the benefit of the doubt through this summer.

Its always been my opinion that any future MAP's program will need to start radiating out of downtown. That part of town has plenty of momentum to be self-sustaining.

Its always been my opinion that any future MAP's program will need to start radiating out of downtown. That part of town has plenty of momentum to be self-sustaining.

I completely agree. I assume the next MAPs (if there is one) will focus on extending the streetcar and improving diffuse entertainment areas (e.g., lake hefner and city parks). Throw in police and fire facility and equipment upgrades and MAPs 4 is a shoe-in.

I completely agree. I assume the next MAPs (if there is one) will focus on extending the streetcar and improving diffuse entertainment areas (e.g., lake hefner and city parks). Throw in police and fire facility and equipment upgrades and MAPs 4 is a shoe-in.

You can bet your bottom dollar there will be another maps...and another....and another.
Do you really think the fathers of the "big league city" will give up the extra penny.

I believe you've nailed it.
Yes, I agree.

There has been growing complaints that MAPS is too downtown oriented but the counter argument has always been that downtown is for everyone.

Yet, when a big segment of the population wants to gather there, the rug is pulled out. And after the billions of investment, many will see downtown as unsafe.


I hope with time and lots of other positive events that this is largely forgotten but you know a certain percentage of the population will use it against any future downtown public improvements.

Huh??? (scratching my head about this entire discussion)

Huh??? (scratching my head about this entire discussion)

I was thinking the same thing. By the time MAPS 4 is proposed, this will be a distant memory. Actually, no one will remember it. It's sad that it happened, but it has little to nothing to do with any current or future MAPS projects. And, I seriously doubt a few extra policemen would have prevented it regardless. The root of the problem relates to 19 year olds having guns. It's far more logical to pass a law outlawing guns as a way to prevent violence than to vote against a MAPS project.

... Might be hard to sell future MAPS projects if the recent violence issues are not resolved in a timely and workable fashion. You think?

I take no pleasure in noting this. I think you place way more credit than appropriate on the collective memory of the sheeple.
It was a horrid shooting, but unlike fires and tornados, it won't be revisited at every six month anniversary by the rating centric news media. We have lots of shootings in the metro every year, some downtown, some not. Some with multiple victims, some not.

No need to reply, but stop a moment. Without going to a news site archive or google, can you name any non-homicide shooting, with or without multiple victims, that took place in the metro at anytime in 2011? 2010? 2009? I'm gonna guess the first shootings that came to mind are actually homicide shootings instead. People 'only' getting shot doesn't rank long with most folk.

The root of the problem relates to 19 year olds having guns. It's far more logical to pass a law outlawing guns as a way to prevent violence than to vote against a MAPS project.No, the root of the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing Bricktown curfew. The 16-year-old who has confessed to the shooting was already breaking the law by having the gun; no additional laws would be likely to have restrained him. The Sullivan Act hasn't seemed to prevent shootings in NYC; why is it logical to expect a similar law to be effective here?

Perhaps the true root of this problem, and many others, might be our love of Political Correctness and refusal to learn the lessons of history...

I was thinking the same thing. By the time MAPS 4 is proposed, this will be a distant memory. Actually, no one will remember it. It's sad that it happened, but it has little to nothing to do with any current or future MAPS projects. And, I seriously doubt a few extra policemen would have prevented it regardless. The root of the problem relates to 19 year olds having guns. It's far more logical to pass a law outlawing guns as a way to prevent violence than to vote against a MAPS project.

So I assume Washington DC is the safest place in the country, and Wyoming is a dangerous war zone? Can't walk around at night in Idaho? But New York City is super safe at all hours? Because evidently outlawing guns is all it takes, and criminals always follow the law.

So I assume Washington DC is the safest place in the country, and Wyoming is a dangerous war zone? Can't walk around at night in Idaho? But New York City is super safe at all hours? Because evidently outlawing guns is all it takes, and criminals always follow the law.

You misread my post. I said it is more logical to pass a law outlawing guns in order to prevent violence than to vote against a MAPS project (in order to prevent violence). My point was that voting against MAPS because someone was shot downtown is illogical, and the whole premise of this thread is illogical.

You misread my post. I said it is more logical to pass a law outlawing guns in order to prevent violence than to vote against a MAPS project (in order to prevent violence). My point was that voting against MAPS because someone was shot downtown is illogical, and the whole premise of this thread is illogical.

Ah, my apoligies then. I agree with you.

Gun laws have nothing to do with it. The fact is that we often have much larger gatherings in downtown OKC. Much larger and much more inebriated gatherings are routine, e.g., opening night of the state fair. Shutting the event down due to a one time semi-related incident is an overreaction.

The city needs to look at continuing the momentum, but can also look at better lighting, security checkpoints, training officers to intervene in situations before things get out of hand, etc. I can't think of a single logical reason for shutting this entire event down.

Yeah, I can't figure out why the first reaction they went to was to close the event during the game. I thought it was a neat atmosphere and a fun additional thing to do downtown. It's a shame a few losers can ruin everything for the rest of us.

No, the root of the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing Bricktown curfew. The 16-year-old who has confessed to the shooting was already breaking the law by having the gun; no additional laws would be likely to have restrained him. The Sullivan Act hasn't seemed to prevent shootings in NYC; why is it logical to expect a similar law to be effective here?

Perhaps the true root of this problem, and many others, might be our love of Political Correctness and refusal to learn the lessons of history...

THIS.....but I have to say that the TRUE root to this problem is the parenting of this 16 year old.

These kinds of isolated incidents happen in cities everywhere. This thread is a red herring.

Gun laws have nothing to do with it. The fact is that we often have much larger gatherings in downtown OKC. Much larger and much more inebriated gatherings are routine, e.g., opening night of the state fair. Shutting the event down due to a one time semi-related incident is an overreaction.

The city needs to look at continuing the momentum, but can also look at better lighting, security checkpoints, training officers to intervene in situations before things get out of hand, etc. I can't think of a single logical reason for shutting this entire event down.

This. . .

the root of the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing Bricktown curfew.


the root of the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing Bricktown curfew.


the root of the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing Bricktown curfew.

Sorry if that annoyed anyone, but it really was the second biggest failure of the night.
The first of course was the poor impulse control by the dolt with the firearm.

Back to the point of this thread - the question remains - will this incident of last week and how city officials handle it - take the wind out of the sails for future MAPS projects? For example is there any chance the 'central park' area might not be as accessible for the public if the city regulates stringent crowd control for future events?

No

Back to the point of this thread - the question remains - will this incident of last week and how city officials handle it - take the wind out of the sails for future MAPS projects? For example is there any chance the 'central park' area might not be as accessible for the public if the city regulates stringent crowd control for future events?

The police had already been looking at how the park may be patrolled long before the shooting in bricktown occurred.