OKC March 3rd election for permanent 1/8 cent dedicated sales tax for parks

[shawnw]

On the bright side, if this fails to pass (I'm seeing 53-46 with 72% of precincts in now), it probably at least slightly boosts the chances of the RTA vote passing whenever that comes up, and I think that is by far the more important of the two votes. I most likely would have voted for this if I was still living in OKC, but it's not the end of the world that it's probably not going to pass. The RTA vote failing would be an absolute mess.

I have the opposite feeling. If we can't get a tax passed for parks (very popular), how will we do so for transit, granted it's a larger voting area.

[SEMIweather]

I have the opposite feeling. If we can't get a tax passed for parks (very popular), how will we do so for transit, granted it's a larger voting area.

My thought is basically that OKC voters might have had tax fatigue if the RTA comes up for a vote next year as the third sales tax increase in 18 months. But I can see your POV as well. Hopefully the RTA will have a better campaign behind it (I would expect it to, at least).

[catch22]

I have the opposite feeling. If we can't get a tax passed for parks (very popular), how will we do so for transit, granted it's a larger voting area.

I think people thought MAPS 4 was the "savior" of everything including parks. I believe many were confused or even turned off on adding more money to that pile when they literally just voted on it.

Was spaced way too close to the MAPS 4 ballot and wasn't clear it was for O&M and not capital expense.

OKC should just raise the sales tax anyway, a lot of this doesn't need to be decided by voters. O&M is critical for any department and if the city can't fund their day to operations they need to increase revenue or decrease services.

[floyd the barber]

I think people thought MAPS 4 was the "savior" of everything including parks. I believe many were confused or even turned off on adding more money to that pile when they literally just voted on it.

Was spaced way too close to the MAPS 4 ballot and wasn't clear it was for O&M and not capital expense.



OKC should just raise the sales tax anyway, a lot of this doesn't need to be decided by voters. O&M is critical for any department and if the city can't fund their day to operations they need to increase revenue or decrease services.

I disagree about raising taxes. OKC already has a pretty high sales tax.

[Plutonic Panda]

To catch 22, judging by the responses I agree. Also the mayor didn’t act like he was very supportive of it even though he gave an official decision of being indifferent. I think this initiative could have been helped by having mayoral support and as you said better campaigning emphasizing what this was for. Also could have helped to wait a year.

I think Mayor Holt didn’t support it because he is waiting a year or so to launch a campaign for the RTA initiative which I already believe will be underwhelming but we’ll see.

Bottom line, IMO, citizens of Oklahoma want it to be a great state and seemingly suffer from Texas and Colorado envy but don’t want to pony up the money. Oklahoma AND OKC are one of the lowest taxed areas of the country. I can’t fault people for not wanting a specific tax to be extremely high though. That’s part of the reason the transit initiative in Nashville failed, IMO.

I know I keep beating a dead horse but lawmakers in the state need to get together and let cities collect funds using other means than only a sales tax. It is time for a constitutional convention in Oklahoma to fix many issues.

[Plutonic Panda]

I disagree about raising taxes. OKC already has a pretty high sales tax.

But overall taxes are pretty low. I understand your frustrations about the sales tax. The top 2 percent need to be taxed more, the casinos need more money taken, oil companies need to pay more, and Oklahoma law makers need to stop making cities rely solely on sales tax.

Sales taxes also cause disadvantages to lower income communities particularly those of color in OKC as little to no services are offered there causing people who live there to have to drive to other parts of the city or even another city entirely to get those services. It’s a snowball effect, IMO.

[catch22]

I disagree about raising taxes. OKC already has a pretty high sales tax.

So decrease services then. Oklahoma has a revenue problem. You have to make up for that somewhere if you want nice things.

[OKC Guy]

This tax vote failed to pass:
56,269 voted no new tax
50,288 voted yes tax me more

[Rover]

So decrease services then. Oklahoma has a revenue problem. You have to make up for that somewhere if you want nice things.

No, just gripe about how cheap the city is and how we never do anything nice. Learn to expect something for nothing.

[Pete]

Interesting...

Yes for MAPS4: 31,882
Yes for Parks: 50,228


Obviously, lots more voters in the Parks initiative.

[LakeEffect]

I have the opposite feeling. If we can't get a tax passed for parks (very popular), how will we do so for transit, granted it's a larger voting area.

Well, the Chamber and most OKC elected officials will actually support the RTA. You'll notice that only a portion of OKC's elected Council publicly supported the Parks tax. And the Chamber certainly didn't pay for a pro-campaign like they've done for Maps. And the police/fire unions stayed silent. Not too hard to see how the Parks tax ended up not passing.

[Plutonic Panda]

Interesting...

Yes for MAPS4: 31,882
Yes for Parks: 50,228


Obviously, lots more voters in the Parks initiative.

Wasn’t MAPS 4 an off election? I would bet the voter turnout was much lower. Typical tactics to get something to pass or fail depending on the strategy used.

[OKC Guy]

Interesting...

Yes for MAPS4: 31,882
Yes for Parks: 50,228


Obviously, lots more voters in the Parks initiative.

I think MAPS planned it that way. AllI know is in my district everyone I talked to prior to MAPS4 vote was against it yet it passed easily (in my district). And all I talked to about parks were pretty evenly split for and against. Yet parks lost and MAPS won.

It tells me a lot of voters were disenfranchised by “when” they held the MAPS vote vs Parks was held during a Primary.

Yes, those who did not want MAPS yet failed to vote can’t complain. But reality is the city held MAPS vote intentionally when they knew less would vote and those voting would pass it. I’d loved to have seen MAPS on yesterdays ballot. It still may have passed but we’ll never know.

Thanks for posting the comparison, I had no idea so few turned out for MAPS vote

[cappa]

I think "disenfranchised" is too strong of a word there. I would think any proposition to raise taxes would face an uphill battle when voted on at the same time as a presidential vote regardless of what the tax would be used for. There is bound to be a large percentage of the population that is generally uninformed and will shoot anything down if it involves raising taxes. Not saying that stance isn't valid if you are familiar with the proposition, but I would argue that it's more "fair" to vote on something like MAPS in an off election.

[Pete]

^

There was also an expensive TV and billboard campaign against the proposition funded by a local dark money group.

For people who didn't know the details, they just saw "Say NO to new taxes" and that was that.

[Dob Hooligan]

I will admit that the biggest reason I voted against the parks tax was that I did not want Ed Shadid thinking he could run the city. He lost in his bid to be mayor and he chose to leave the city council. I think he chose to pursue this tax increase outside the normal flow of the powers that be in OKC. I'm not saying they are the greatest and purest, but I trust Mayor Holt and other city leadership.

[OKC Guy]

I think "disenfranchised" is too strong of a word there. I would think any proposition to raise taxes would face an uphill battle when voted on at the same time as a presidential vote regardless of what the tax would be used for. There is bound to be a large percentage of the population that is generally uninformed and will shoot anything down if it involves raising taxes. Not saying that stance isn't valid if you are familiar with the proposition, but I would argue that it's more "fair" to vote on something like MAPS in an off election.

You make really great points. But let me counter.

You say more voters means MAPS likely fails. I would contend most people voting have done some type research and are better informed than non voters. So when we get less voters we are not franchising a bigger segment of the voters.

I caution that with those who failed to vote can only blame themselves. But timing is everything and imo MAPS planned it when they get less voters. I may be wrong but was surprised when MAPS passed at least in my district. Then I see the numbers and it tells me many stayed away. Primaries get more voters out so tactically they didn’t hold MAPS til then as it may not have passed?

Its a great topic and just shows how much variance in voter numbers there is and how it can really make a difference.

[cappa]

It's not that more voters means MAPS fails. It's voters that are going there primarily to vote in a presidential primary that vote no on a proposition they aren't informed on just because it says it will raise taxes. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to raise taxes, and a no vote is your prerogative, but you should at least know what you are voting no for. I'm saying having a separate election for MAPS allows a higher percentage of informed voters.

[OKC Guy]

It's not that more voters means MAPS fails. It's voters that are going there primarily to vote in a presidential primary that vote no on a proposition they aren't informed on just because it says it will raise taxes. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to raise taxes, and a no vote is your prerogative, but you should at least know what you are voting no for. I'm saying having a separate election for MAPS allows a higher percentage of informed voters.

I contend MAPS4 was widely known about and got lots of press and discussion around town. So my guess is more voters would have defeated it or made it closer. This is unscientific but I know a lot of people in my district against it yet most of them failed to go out and vote. They mostly claimed it was a busy time of year and didn’t make time. My comeback was MAPS is a 8 year tax so whats 15 minutes of time when it saves you money/taxes.

Anyways, I don’t disagree with your point its possible Primary voters are not up on other topics but I think MAPS was a well known topic.

[cappa]

It's entirely possible and even likely that more votes = MAPS fail when included on a presidential ballot. And I do agree that MAPS is more well-known and doesn't compare to a 1/8th cent parks tax. But I don't think there's any shady business going on by having MAPS on a separate ballot. Strategic, sure, but I'd actually prefer it that way to get more informed voters on something so substantial. As far as finding time to vote, that's a whole separate issue and why we still vote on Tuesdays is beyond me.

[OKC Guy]

It's entirely possible and even likely that more votes = MAPS fail when included on a presidential ballot. And I do agree that MAPS is more well-known and doesn't compare to a 1/8th cent parks tax. But I don't think there's any shady business going on by having MAPS on a separate ballot. Strategic, sure, but I'd actually prefer it that way to get more informed voters on something so substantial. As far as finding time to vote, that's a whole separate issue and why we still vote on Tuesdays is beyond me.

Thats fair. And I agree, shady is too strong. It was likely tactical and deliberate. I don’t blame them for doing so its their bread and butter. I also blame the voters who made excuses to not get out. I only wish it was held when more could show and is why I used the disenfranchised word. That may be too strong, but since its 8 years long (and I admit I wanted a 2 year MAPS to allow us to adjust as city grows/changes) we are unable to change it. Thats a long time for a temporary tax.

[SEMIweather]

The thing is, it wouldn't have taken any more effort to vote on MAPS than it was to vote on this initiative. Polls were open at the same time, and there was the same early voting timeframe for both. I would argue that Oklahoma (and the country as a whole) should make it easier to vote by mail, but it's not like they changed the general rules for either of the votes in question.

[shawnw]

I will admit that the biggest reason I voted against the parks tax was that I did not want Ed Shadid thinking he could run the city. He lost in his bid to be mayor and he chose to leave the city council. I think he chose to pursue this tax increase outside the normal flow of the powers that be in OKC. I'm not saying they are the greatest and purest, but I trust Mayor Holt and other city leadership.

Um, initiative petitions are part of the normal flow. It's in the city charter. It just so happened that Ed funded this one, but any of us could go out and get 6500 signatures to force a vote on an issue. There's nothing wrong with it and I wish we'd see more of that sort of thing ("people doing something about an issue") vs all the belly aching.

https://www.okc.gov/departments/initiative-petition

The Oklahoma State Constitution, the Charter of The City of Oklahoma City and state law give residents the power to file initiative peitions about legislative issues.

[shawnw]

The thing is, it wouldn't have taken any more effort to vote on MAPS than it was to vote on this initiative. Polls were open at the same time, and there was the same early voting timeframe for both. I would argue that Oklahoma (and the country as a whole) should make it easier to vote by mail, but it's not like they changed the general rules for either of the votes in question.

I agree that it should be made even easier, but it's already very easy to vote by mail. You sign up at the voter portal. You can select the option for them to mail you every ballot you're eligible to vote on for the entire year. You receive your ballots weeks ahead of time. If you forget to send it in, you can still go to the polls, you just have to sign an affidavit saying you didn't send in your mail ballot.

https://okvoterportal.okelections.us/

[OKC Guy]

The thing is, it wouldn't have taken any more effort to vote on MAPS than it was to vote on this initiative. Polls were open at the same time, and there was the same early voting timeframe for both. I would argue that Oklahoma (and the country as a whole) should make it easier to vote by mail, but it's not like they changed the general rules for either of the votes in question.

Agreed. But it was the time of vote. 10 Dec. People are off work enough with holidays plus parties and school events and Christmas shopping. Its a poor excuse for people to not vote but its the reality of when the vote was held that kept most away. Compare to yesterday with Primaries and much less to keep voters away. I vote every time something comes up. Probably why I’ve gotten called plenty for jury duty lol.