Exclusive MAPS 3 poll

[urbanity]

STORY:
OKC voters exclusively share opinions on MAPS 3 options | OKG Scene.com

RESULTS:
http://www.okgazette.com/images/pdfs...ll-Results.pdf

[Doug Loudenback]

Yes, I was just reading that article and PDF file ... picked up the link from Blair Humphreys' blog. It shows some somewhat surprising preliminary attitudes ...

[king183]

It's really interesting, to me at least, that there is virtually no partisan divide on these issues. The only difference seems to be that Republicans are slightly more opposed to the street car (by 1.7%--not sure if that's even statistically significant) and Democrats are slightly more opposed to the convention center (by ~5%) . But the support level for those and the others seem to be very close to each other in both parties. In this case, it seems like Independents are the most skeptical of everything.

Perhaps this isn't surprising as these issues aren't partisan.

Also, the mayor's high approval rating is identical across the parties, with more Independents disapproving.

Lastly, it looks like supporters of MAPS 3 have some work to do on the Convention Center and Central Park issue, with majorities opposing the center and near majorities opposing the parks. As the campaign unfolds, I'm sure support for both of those projects will increase substantially. Altogether, MAPS 3 looks to be on pretty solid ground at the outset, though people clearly want more information before making their final decision.

[adaniel]

It probably sounds overly confident, but I remember correctly, KFOR did a poll when the Ford Center tax was first proposed and a slight plurality was against it. The vote ended up passing 61%.

For 52% of people to be for it even though the vast majority have only gien passing thought about it is a pretty good place to start at. Most politicians would kill to get those kind of numbers early on in a campaign. I'm a little surprised in the bleak language both News 9 and the Gazette use, as if this thing is somehow in deep trouble.

[westsidesooner]

Lastly, it looks like supporters of MAPS 3 have some work to do on the Convention Center and Central Park issue, with majorities opposing the center and near majorities opposing the parks. As the campaign unfolds, I'm sure support for both of those projects will increase substantially. Altogether, MAPS 3 looks to be on pretty solid ground at the outset, though people clearly want more information before making their final decision.

It's surprising to me that the least popular of the projects mentioned (new convention center) is the one most likely to bring economic benefits, tourists/conventioners, and spin off new business opportunities. New hotels, restaraunts, etc. I'm also surprised so many people seem to know so little about Maps3....I guess they dont haunt OKCTALK!!! You'd be surprised how many people I've spoken with who have no idea what core to shore is.

I'm a little surprised in the bleak language both News 9 and the Gazette use, as if this thing is somehow in deep trouble.

I've been getting a little frustrated with the coverage on Ch9. It seems as though they believe its a bad idea...or a good plan at the wrong time. Whichever is the case I disageree wholeheartedly. I haven't missed that extra penny over the last few years for the last Maps projects and I wont flinch if it's extended. And I guarantee it'll be much easier to extend the current rate than try to raise it in the future. And what better time to stimulate the economy with new jobs, infrastrucutre and pride than at the end (hopefully) of an economic downturn.

[Platemaker]

I'm also surprised so many people seem to know so little about Maps3....I guess they dont haunt OKCTALK!!! You'd be surprised how many people I've spoken with who have no idea what core to shore is.

All the more reason those of us who do need to amass everyone we can and make sure this thing passes.

[soonerguru]

It's surprising to me that the least popular of the projects mentioned (new convention center) is the one most likely to bring economic benefits, tourists/conventioners, and spin off new bisuness opportunities.

This is not a given for economic benefits. Major conventions are down -- even before the recession -- what they were in previous years.

If the city truly becomes a "big-league" city with big-city amenities, such as a grand park, great public transit, etc. that will have more long-term economic benefits.

That said, having bigger conventions will certainly help the city sales tax coffers, hotels, restaurants, retail, etc.

[Patrick]

Concerning conventions, we need to think longer term. Sure, the economy is down now, but the economy fluctuates and it will come back up again. This will be a more long term investment.

We could just not build the convention center and convert the arena in the Cox Center into convention space. But, then we lose the ability to hold the men's and women's Big 12 basketball tournaments, plus the Cox Center arena is nice for smaller events, shows, and concerts that may not need 20,000 seats. I actually think the Cox Center would be a better home to an AHL team than the Ford Center. Ford Center is too large for minor league hockey. The Blazers did better in the Cox Center.

[westsidesooner]

While it's true that convention travel is down, OKC for geographical reasons alone is a good choice for those companies and business' that are having conventions to think about coming here. Presuming air travel to and from OKC isn't to difficult.

I'm all for each of the projects mentioned. The streetrail I might use a few times a year since I dont work downtown, the fair definitely needs the improvements after the butcher job they've done on it in the last decade, bike trails....love it, the more the better (might want to finish that bike/pedestrain bridge over NWHWY though to really get me onboard. Sidewalks are a given...this is one of the most pedestrian unfriendly cities I've ever seen.

The aquatic centers for the seniors I wont use for a few more years...but what a great statement it makes about OKC to have that on the project list. And I'm sure those would go to great use. The river projects while I might not use them very often either, would sure be a great destination for those that do.

It looks like people voted for the projects they would use the most in the poll. Since many won't be attending conventions here in their hometown it's understandable that they think little of that particular project.

I have to admit the park is my favorite. And while having a grand central park would be nice I think having the convention center bordering it would be beneficial to both. Especially if said convention center is attached to a new hotel with a patio restaurant overlooking the park. The Myraid gardens while overlooked by many in OKC can be beautiful, almost magical if you catch it with the christmas lights burning during a good snow. Its just that its not within walking distance (for some) of the rest of downtown, especially any of the downtown housing. For the new park to be truly succesful it needs the convention center, retail and residential development to complete the area.

[Patrick]

And $10 million won't complete the sidewalk program. Remember that. It's just a start. I can just picture some guy now complaining that MAPS didn't put a sidewalk in his neighborhood. MAPS 3 isn't promising that. I'd imagine the sidewalk program will be an ongoing thing, until we finally complete everything, which will be years down the road.

[metro]

westside, as far as the bike trail over NW Expressway, the funding is already set aside for that project, and I believe it is set for construction Q4 of this year or Q1 of next year if I'm not mistaken.

[progressiveboy]

There is a saying, In order to make money, you have to spend money. To me this correlates to MAPS 3. It is a given that this is not a tax increase but a continuation of the penny sales tax for another 7-8 years, so personally I do not see what the problem with all the naysayers opposing more progress for OKC. I hope for the sake of OKC's continued renaissance and progression into a more liveable, cosmopolitan city then this vote is very crucial to the viability and how far OKC wishes to advance and grow as a city. I believe what is going to make OKC a viable contender for conventions, walkability and recreation is for all the forward thinking young people that reside there to vote for their future. Does OKC stop the progress and just rest on it's laurels without doing anything? Sloth and complacency should not be in the vocabulary of OKC inhabitants.

[westsidesooner]

westside, as far as the bike trail over NW Expressway, the funding is already set aside for that project, and I believe it is set for construction Q4 of this year or Q1 of next year if I'm not mistaken.

Not to get this thread off-track, but thats great news Metro.....THX

[Doug Loudenback]

About the Gazette/News 9 poll, a couple of things:

(1) I agree with comments above that see the poll is capable of being interpreted as a glass half-full or half-empty. My take is that, particularly given the absence of information we presently have which causes reluctance in some like me in reaching a final conclusion (and city hall only has itself to blame for that), ultimate voter approval does not look to me like a dire straight circumstance at all since, sooner or later, the detail will presumably be supplied. We know from recent experience (the March 4 vote) that the Chamber is adept at campaigning and I'd be amazed if the Chamber didn't do its part in this piece of Okc history very well. Given that, I see the poll as not a particularly worrisome thing, from a pro-Maps 3 vote perspective.

(2) On the other hand, I think it is also fair to say that media sources other than the Oklahoman are the only places to turn to for objective media reporting, should those sources do their job well (i.e., actually BE objective and present information that will give objective as possible data for voters to think about). Granted, some don't need that detail to reach a conclusion; they are already for it or against it and the detail doesn't matter. For some others, at least one that I have intimately known since becoming a semi-cognitive person at some point in time after birth, the detail does matter.

Why would one not expect to see point/counter-point articles in the Oklahoman? Well, who is the current president of the Chamber (a group I generally like but one which can hardly be expected to present "the other side")? David Thompson is the current Chamber chairman. David Thompson is president of OPUBCO Communications Group and publisher of the Oklahoman. See this article and video from yesterday's press conference/announcement of the coalition favoring Maps 3 passage. In the image below, David Thompson is on the left.



Given that linkage, one would not expect "fair and balanced" Oklahoman reporting in the matter. At least, I doubt that journalists there have that much freedom of expression in these regards, particularly in the present era of reporters and other Oklahoman employees being let go. Perhaps that's just the jaded side of me thinking and talking.

Other news sources have less need or reason for restraint. For example, as far as I'm aware, only the Gazette presented an article which debated the the value of a new convention center, pros and cons, and not just the Chamber's view. It did that in a July 2009 article. I'll quote part of that article below:

There is one person who would like to inform the Oklahoma City Council and residents that a new convention center may not be the answer: Heywood Sanders, a researcher with the University of Texas at San Antonio. He has studied the move by cities to construct mega-convention centers since the 1980s and would differ from the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber's consultant conclusion.

"The reality is, there has been a huge increase in the amount of supply (convention space) over the last 10 to 15 years," Sanders said. "Does that mean you get any more business? And the answer in general is 'no'." Since the late 1990s, convention-generated business has been on a downward slide, according to Sanders' research. Yet, during that same time, the number of cities and amount of convention center floor space skyrocketed, along with an increase in nearby hotel rooms. At least 53 cities either built new or expanded existing convention centers since 2000. Between 1986 and 2006, the number of convention centers across the country increased from 193 to 322. But since 1996, the number of convention attendees dropped. Sanders said the current rate of attendance is at 1993 levels.

"One of the things we know is the demand has not grown in the period since 2003," when the country started to come out of the recession caused by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said. "Most (cities) seem to be doing what they did before. It does suggest that as far as going forward, what we are seeing is not just a temporary downturn, particularly on the convention side, but a ratcheting down that may not ratchet back up."

The article also presents Greater Oklahoma City Chamber CEO Roy Williams' counterpoint to Heywood Sanders' observations, and, all in all, I found the article to be one of the better give-and-take discussions of MAPS 3 that I've read.

As for me, and continuing to take the proposed convention center as an example, I like the idea of a new convention center, even if I also think that it would be better were it located south of Lower Bricktown instead of south of the Ford Center -- an issue which may well be undecided at this point.

But, we don't know. We don't know because we've not been told, at least not yet. Whether the location of the convention center is presently known or is still up for grabs, it would do no harm for the city to be up front and clear about the matter. That would help people who want available facts and who want to analyze them and then make a decision. For others, the details may not matter and they are either content to vote no, no, a thousand times no, or, conversely, be content to jump on a yes, yes, a thousand times yes, bandwagon and hope and fully expect that they will like the final destination of where that wagon may finally park itself. It doesn't matter where.

I want to and probably will support Maps 3. But it would sure help me reach that conclusion a heck of a lot earlier with full disclosure now so that I could think it through and make my project-by-project analysis, and then shuffle the cards to reach a general conclusion and decision. But that won't happen until much more disclosure is made, and that's not in my control.

The city's approach in not making that disclosure is only causing me to defer getting on the city's bandwagon, and the Gazette/News 9 poll suggests that other voters may well be in the boat that I am in. For me, and those who want the full deck of cards before deciding how to vote and who aren't just going to blindly say "OK," the city is loosing an opportunity to recruit a bunch of potential cheerleaders which will supplement the existing cheerleaders who are inclined to be gung-ho about MAPS 3 without the kind of detail that others, like me, want to have.

[RedDirt717]

All the more reason those of us who do need to amass everyone we can and make sure this thing passes.

I agree, we've got 2-3 months to really take this to the voters. I'm already working 60 hours a week, but I'm going to help with the campaign on every other weekend.

[Nermel]

I will be voting no...

[betts]

I'm not sure the question should be: Will we see an increase in Convention business with a new convention center, but rather: Will the Cox Center slowly decay and will we fall even further behind in convention bookings? I also think there's a question of whether the new convention center will pay for itself when looking at how replacing a blighted area with a new convention center will stimulate other growth of the area, such as hotels and restaurants and will adding jobs for construction also improve our economy. Will the convention center actually improve things above and beyond what we would expect for convention business alone?

It's still one of the things in MAPS 3 I care about the least, and so the city will get my yes vote not because of the convention center, but because of the other things in it I want, and because of how important I think it is to continue improving our downtown and begin to revitalize our mass transit system.

[Stinkerpants]

What gets me is they want $60 million for the Fairgrounds, and only 11 percent of the voters want it. Anybody know the background on what it will be used for?

[Stinkerpants]

Did anyone notice that the fairgrounds is slated for $60 million in improvements? Any idea what the "improvements" are?

[Patrick]

I will be voting no...

Do you care to share why? It's one thing to say you're not going to vote for something but it's another to explain why.

[CCOKC]

I'm not sure the question should be: Will we see an increase in Convention business with a new convention center, but rather: Will the Cox Center slowly decay and will we fall even further behind in convention bookings? I also think there's a question of whether the new convention center will pay for itself when looking at how replacing a blighted area with a new convention center will stimulate other growth of the area, such as hotels and restaurants and will adding jobs for construction also improve our economy. Will the convention center actually improve things above and beyond what we would expect for convention business alone?

It's still one of the things in MAPS 3 I care about the least, and so the city will get my yes vote not because of the convention center, but because of the other things in it I want, and because of how important I think it is to continue improving our downtown and begin to revitalize our mass transit system.

I agree with you on this Betts. I think the Convention Center needs to be replaced just to keep the conventions we do have. But you have to remember our "convention" spaces are used by many local activities. I am in a profession that requires annual continuing education and use the convention center at the Clarion at I-40 and Meridian and the Cox Center at least once a year just for this reason. Our city is growing at such a pace that it is not unusual for there to be a gathering of 300-500 people at one time. It is not that easy to find a space that will hold meetings that large here in town. Norman built a new convention center with the Embassy Suites that opened last year so that makes 3 large convention spaces that our own citizens can use not to mention any large conventions that we want to attract for regional or national conventions. It is not very sexy but it is something that is needed. Pittsburgh PA is hosting the G-20 event this week because of their new convention center.

[OKCisOK4me]

I will be voting no...

Will you really be missing that extra penny on the dollar? All of our pennies are a better investment for the future of our city. If we were all millionaires, we'd just donate to create a better city but we're not. I'm voting yes because I want to see what my pennies can do.

[soonerguru]

Will you really be missing that extra penny on the dollar? All of our pennies are a better investment for the future of our city. If we were all millionaires, we'd just donate to create a better city but we're not. I'm voting yes because I want to see what my pennies can do.

It's not an "extra" penny. All MAPS III does is keep the sales tax at the same rate.

[Theo Walcott]

Anybody who would vote "No" on this is pretty stupid, and, frankly, I'd like to see them move outside OKC city limits.

All this does is keep the sales tax as it's been for what now, something like 10 years??? It's truly incredible to me that some people are so backwards that they look at this as though it was some kind of huge tax on their lives. Get over yourselves, clowns.

[circuitboard]

Anybody who would vote "No" on this is pretty stupid, and, frankly, I'd like to see them move outside OKC city limits.

All this does is keep the sales tax as it's been for what now, something like 10 years??? It's truly incredible to me that some people are so backwards that they look at this as though it was some kind of huge tax on their lives. Get over yourselves, clowns.

I agree.