New info on MAPS 3

[Doug Loudenback]

City funding for Bass Pro ruled legal, valid by judge

By Steve Lackmeyer
Staff Writer
[full article omitted by Doug]

Hey, I thought we weren't supposed to be posting your full Oklahoman articles here. What's up with the above?


That said, reading this part of your article certainly shows at least some history ... probably good for someone in the know (hint, hint) to research the matter to see if other examples of the same type of thing are common ...

* * * Batchelor said the use tax, however, was passed by resolution, not an ordinance, that stated the city intended to use the proceeds for maintenance.

"It's a mere declaration of intent," Batchelor countered. "The city is free to change its intent at any time."

Those kind of words may come back to haunt MAPS 3.

[gmwise]

Hey Steve....
you sure didnt forsee Galileo's closing.Did you?


Well I guess if a monkey sitting at a typewriter typing randomly, eventually they can write for the Oklahoman.

[Steve]

I didn't foresee Galileo's closing. Not sure how I've earned your hatred here. You certainly don't know what I do or don't do to try to get the news out.

[SoonerDave]

DelCamino, do you believe today's news stations and newspapers have the same staffing and resources needed to act as a watchdog over city spending? Does this matter?

I'm not DelCamino, but I'm going to offer my own answer if you'll forgive me....in short, no. Not only are they lacking in staffing and resources, it is my personal opinion they are lacking in motivation to serve as a watchdog.

Every day I turn on local news, its apparent they're infinitely more concerned with impressive camera angles on highly-coiffed anchors and HD production values than in serving as a public watchdog.

As far as my "trust" in the city council, it isn't *this* city council I'm concerned about. Its the makeup of the council as it will sit years from now, beyond when most if not all the current members and/or mayor will be gone.

I had no idea that this ballot rule had come into play and created what amounts to a "blank check" situation for this round of MAPS. This is precisely the kind of oversight I believe voters want, but aren't going to get.

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm not DelCamino, but I'm going to offer my own answer if you'll forgive me....in short, no. Not only are they lacking in staffing and resources, it is my personal opinion they are lacking in motivation to serve as a watchdog.

Lack of motivation may not be the only cause, SoonerDave. See http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...tml#post258673

[gmwise]

I didnt single you out for anything.
I dont trust any of the Oklahoman's staff.They dont do anything to get news out..Things just got sloppy since Ed Morrow left the scene.

[Doug Loudenback]

Well, gmwise, I don't work for the Oklahoman. Never have, never will. I guess that I don't understand your comment. All I was saying that Oklahoman reporters may have constraints which are not related to how they would prefer to do their job. Please read the link that I made and think a bit before passing judgment on them.

[Karried]

Hey Steve....
you sure didnt forsee Galileo's closing.Did you?


Well I guess if a monkey sitting at a typewriter typing randomly, eventually they can write for the Oklahoman.

This sounds pretty specific to me. Please refrain from personal attacks. Courtesy and respect in our discussions are much appreciated.

[Jimslimmer]

I have heard from some sources that the polling shows a majority in favor of the continuation of the Maps-3 funding. Do you think the public is " mapped out" or, do you think the polls will hold true?

[SoonerDave]

I have heard from some sources that the polling shows a majority in favor of the continuation of the Maps-3 funding. Do you think the public is " mapped out" or, do you think the polls will hold true?

I really don't know, honestly. I think there is MAPS fatigue. I think there is the least general, "out-of-the-gate" support for this round than in any of the three previous rounds, and if the broader issue of oversight emerges, then I think this election will be very, very close.

The single, worst possible thing city leaders could do is put something out there that gives people footing the bill the slightest reason to either mistrust their motives, or not giving them what they've been promised. We have, at least as far as I'm able to understand right now, absolutely *no* mechanism to guarantee any of these projects will be built. [b]None.[b]. That troubles me greatly.

If I'm wrong on this, *please* correct me. But based on what I've read here, it sounds as though the city council could change 100% of the direction of these monies and this project merely for a 5-4 (or quorum) vote on an appropriate resolution. Please tell me I'm wrong. I don't know if I can possibly support a $700+million blank check to the city.

[soonerguru]

I really don't know, honestly. I think there is MAPS fatigue. I think there is the least general, "out-of-the-gate" support for this round than in any of the three previous rounds, and if the broader issue of oversight emerges, then I think this election will be very, very close.

The single, worst possible thing city leaders could do is put something out there that gives people footing the bill the slightest reason to either mistrust their motives, or not giving them what they've been promised. We have, at least as far as I'm able to understand right now, absolutely *no* mechanism to guarantee any of these projects will be built. [b]None.[b]. That troubles me greatly.

If I'm wrong on this, *please* correct me. But based on what I've read here, it sounds as though the city council could change 100% of the direction of these monies and this project merely for a 5-4 (or quorum) vote on an appropriate resolution. Please tell me I'm wrong. I don't know if I can possibly support a $700+million blank check to the city.

Dave,

While your concerns are well reasoned, and noted for all on the board, I would just like to tell you this is not going to happen. How do I know? I don't. But there are a couple of points to consider:

1. MAPS 1 and 2, while not without controversy, were handled well by the city and exceeded taxpayer expectations.

2. What politician in his/her right mind would do what you are suggesting? And why? I honestly believe the city leaders -- with the obvious exception of Walters -- are supportive of the initiatives.

Politicians are anything but courageous. They're certainly reticent to flagrantly disregard their constituents.

I think this amounts to lawyerly concern -- not entirely misplaced, mind you -- but not a likely outcome.

We could, for example, go bankrupt, or get hit by a meteor, or another terrorist strike, but those things aren't likely to occur, either. Why worry about something that is so unlikely to occur?

The bigger concern is that the economy starts humming too fast and the costs on these projects all skyrocket.

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm not at all fatigued by the penny sales tax, SoonerDave. Paying that penny tax for 7 3/4 more years will not in any way change what I'm already quite accustomed to doing.

I cannot tell you that you are wrong about what you said in your last paragraph, since it accurately states the truth. As to how that fact may affect your or my vote, as I've already said, the ballot and ordinance basically amount to a handshake deal. At least, I can think of no better analogy.

Each of us will have to decide whether a handshake is enough. Many stories are told of times gone by when a handshake was all that was needed. Whether vintage storytelling might have relevance to MAPS 3 today is the question. I'd like to at least be reassured that it is by someone who is in a position to give that reassurance, and I'll wait to hear what our mayor and council members have to say before reaching a conclusion about that.

Soonerguru, you post registered here before mine did, so I'll add these comments about what you said, above. In the main, I am inclined to agree ... tar and feathering would almost certainly occur were the council to decide (even if done legally, as it would be) to alter the items which are publicly in the MAPS 3 publicity. But, in this, my thought is tempered by what Steve reported in a different thread, as well as my reply at http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...tml#post258658 ...

That said, reading this part of your article certainly shows at least some history ... probably good for someone in the know (hint, hint) to research the matter to see if other examples of the same type of thing are common ...

* * * Batchelor said the use tax, however, was passed by resolution, not an ordinance, that stated the city intended to use the proceeds for maintenance.

"It's a mere declaration of intent," Batchelor countered. "The city is free to change its intent at any time."

Those kind of words may come back to haunt MAPS 3.

That sort of an arrogant attitude does not benefit those who are looking for assurance in what is going on right now so that that they will conclude to support MAPS 3, including me.

[kevinpate]

For the sake of going forward, a handshake and a gentleman's agreement will need to be enough. The way this is laid out, a sincere faith in OKC leadership, present and replacements in the near future, will be necessary.

[OKCMallen]

Hey Steve....
you sure didnt forsee Galileo's closing.Did you?


Well I guess if a monkey sitting at a typewriter typing randomly, eventually they can write for the Oklahoman.

Jeez that seems uncalled-for...

[Doug Loudenback]

In what you said, Kevin, you may well be correct. I've not yet personally decided if the handshake is enough, even though I want it to be. More, even if it is enough today, this proposed tax lasts 7 3/4 years, and council's makeup will almost certainly be different before then than it is today. Will those future guys and gals feel the same way? We don't know, have no way of knowing, and we have nothing in place that binds them in any way.

That's a bit of the problem.

[Doug Loudenback]

Jeez that seems uncalled-for...

Completely agree.

[Midtowner]

They could have done a public trust and they didn't. The question is why. It can't be that they didn't think about it since every member of the city government deals with other public trusts on a regular basis.

And Doug raises a good point -- why would future city council members feel constrained by the handshakes of today? Aren't most city council members laser-focused on bringing back the goods to their own respective wards? I'm not sure it's even fair to expect future councilmen to feel bound by the decisions of today's councilmen (assuming those councilmen are on board) to go along with this plan.

Remember, all it takes is a majority of the city council in this case to overturn the will of the people.

They could have formed a public trust, but failed to do so. I know I'm going to really need an answer as to why that is before I cast my vote for this thing.

[metro]

But what about the oversight board? Many of the current councilpersons will still be on the council in 7 years. At the very least, the majority will probably be there at least half that time, in which some projects might be complete and others will be well underway. Do you honestly think the MAJORITY of the council will pull the plug on projects underway? That would be political suicide and the public would revolt and probably force some to resign. I mean seriously, do you people honestly think this is what the odds are of happening. Not saying it's not possible, but come on, it's VERY unlikely. This is the local government, not feds. If for some reason the majority of council is gone, the majority of the new council will still probably be pro-OKC and get things done as planned. They won't be able to get elected without those promises or mindset (except maybe Ward 5).

[Midtowner]

What actual power does the oversight board have? Can they pull the plug on projects not in conformance with the original mandate? I highly doubt it.

Further, due to their appointee status, would they even if they could? I have zero confidence in such a body.

[OKCMallen]

The oversight board appears to have zero control. This is a 777 million dollar blank check. I'll still vote for it because I don't mind the tax on myself. If this were the city putting itself into debt for 777 million on a blank check, I'd vote no.

[soonerguru]

Well, gmwise, I don't work for the Oklahoman. Never have, never will. I guess that I don't understand your comment. All I was saying that Oklahoman reporters may have constraints which are not related to how they would prefer to do their job. Please read the link that I made and think a bit before passing judgment on them.

Despite Steve and others' best efforts to the contrary, there are many aspects of the Oklahoman that are terrible. I'm sure Steve knows what they are.

The paper has improved, but its moniker of "Daily Disappoinment" is often well-deserved.

[Steve]

Sooner, I would urge you and others that if you see coverage you don't agree with or believe that we are falling short in doing our jobs, that you call or email the paper's editors and let them know.

[soonerguru]

Sooner, I would urge you and others that if you see coverage you don't agree with or believe that we are falling short in doing our jobs, that you call or email the paper's editors and let them know.

Trust me, I've been doing that for two decades.

For what it's worth, I think you do a great job.

[Steve]

Thanks Sooner. And don't let up with my bosses know when you think we're falling short.

[Patrick]

I agree with metro. City leaders will use the money for the projects promised, otherwise they face political suicide, and forever risk never getting an improvements program passed in this city ever again. They're not dumb enough to use the money for other uses.

And, actually, remember, even though we were promised certain projects in MAPS 1, there was some doubt that, for example, the arena would ever be built, especially after we were denied the NHL team.