New info on MAPS 3

[Kerry]

Steve left a big one, maybe the biggest one, off his list. The NBA.

IRON76HD - if your concern is basic support services then you should encourage a higher density downtown that MAPS related projects bring. While adding to offerings of the city they cause almost zero impact to support services (just how many times do you think the Ford Center will catch on fire) as they use services that are already in place.

[Steve]

STEVE!!!!! and all the rest... You make my point. That was an interesting list. Question for you. What is the unemployment rate???? What was it before MAPS? Where is all the jobs???? Steve who is going to police those buildings??? who is going to respond to the fires for those great structures??? whos going to repair and maintain the roads???? WHO??? Don't you understand that ALL services are stretched to the limits!!!!!!!!!! I got it maybe u don't care!! that sounds more like it. it has to directly affect you for you to see a problem...

All I did was to create a list of development directly tied to the original MAPS. I'm not weighing in on anything else here.

[Midtowner]

Steve left a big one, maybe the biggest one, off his list. The NBA.

IRON76HD - if your concern is basic support services then you should encourage a higher density downtown that MAPS related projects bring. While adding to offerings of the city they cause almost zero impact to support services (just how many times do you think the Ford Center will catch on fire) as they use services that are already in place.

This.

Iron, if you're concerned about support services and infrastructure, your bellyaching attacks the solution rather than the cause of the problem.

If you want to have someone suffer your righteous indignation, focus on those who think it's a good idea to have rural stretches of nothingness within the city limits. Further complain about the developers building homes and other projects which actually do stretch the city's services and infrastructure.

[soonerguru]

STEVE!!!!! and all the rest... You make my point. That was an interesting list. Question for you. What is the unemployment rate???? What was it before MAPS? Where is all the jobs???? Steve who is going to police those buildings??? who is going to respond to the fires for those great structures??? whos going to repair and maintain the roads???? WHO??? Don't you understand that ALL services are stretched to the limits!!!!!!!!!! I got it maybe u don't care!! that sounds more like it. it has to directly affect you for you to see a problem...

You have a right to your opinion, but this is incomprehensible nonsense.

Building more density in the inner city will actually make policing more efficient, fire and emergency services quicker to respond, etc.

We probably actually support you getting a raise or more help, but bashing MAPS will turn us against you in a NY minute.

[Larry OKC]

That's pretty irrelevant to the mayor's office. They are not allowed to run or serve with a party affiliation.

It was relevant to the statement I was responding to, if you will go back and read the discussion thread....

[jbrown84]

I'm really late to the game, but why the clamoring for a PUBLIC TRUST??? Is that not what the notorious OCURA is? I think I'll trust the city council far more than putting it into the hands of a similar group.

And the Bass Pro deal did involve changing the "intent" of some maintenence funds, but keep in mind that, at the time, most of us supported it and it was seen as urgent almost on the level of the Ford Center Tax.

[jbrown84]

That's the point many of us are trying to get across here, folks. There is absolutely no guarantee ANY of the projects here will get done. You guys want this 21st century city, and so do I, so why wouldn't we all want the proper up-front governance to ensure it GETS done?

I think the point is: the chance of anything changing on this issue is slim at this point, and making a big deal out of it could sway enough people against voting for it that it doesn't pass.

If your only choices were passing it as is, or voting no and getting NONE of these projects, how would you vote?

I'd rather vote yes, knowing we'll at least get most of the projects (and what replaces the others may be for the better).

[soonerguru]

I think the point is: the chance of anything changing on this issue is slim at this point, and making a big deal out of it could sway enough people against voting for it that it doesn't pass.

If your only choices were passing it as is, or voting no and getting NONE of these projects, how would you vote?

I'd rather vote yes, knowing we'll at least get most of the projects (and what replaces the others may be for the better).

I think your answer is that some people don't understand pragmatism, and will willingly shoot themselves in the foot to either a) get attention, or b) remain pure in their minds to their ideological underpinnings, even when it means their quixotic efforts only lead to defeat of an initiative they probably support by 90% as it's written.

Brilliant strategy.

[Larry OKC]

... If your only choices were passing it as is, or voting no and getting NONE of these projects, how would you vote? ...

That presumes those are the only choices and they aren't. IF voted down, and if this is as important to the City as they say it is, they will come back to the voters with it in another form. Case in point: when Edmond's tax for their new public safety building failed, did Edmond just give up on it? No, they are fixing what was thought to cause the vote to fail and present it to the voters again.

[jbrown84]

If we're *really* lucky, Starbucks might reopen a store near the trolley line. Or maybe some world-renown marketing company that employs 10 whole people will move into the Devon building. Whoopty-friggen-doo.

Um, no. NOT "whoopty-friggen-doo". This is how we grow. Fortune 500 companies rarely pick up and move. How do you think Portland became such a magnet for young professionals--or Seattle before that? They created a reputation for being progressive. Being green. Being a nice place to live, where you can walk to work, or ride your bicycle safely, or take the streetcar home to an urban, mixed use are where there's a coffee shop in walking distance. YES!! These things add up, and if you don't see that, YOU are the delusional one.

And how are you going to separate yourself from the anti-tax for anything people, the anti-government paranoids, the I hate Oklahoma City and will vote for anything that will pull the plug on progress "no" voters? The message it will send is that people aren't willing to spend a few dollars a month to improve our city, and nothing else. There's not going to be a new MAPS vote in six months with language that makes you happy, believe me.

[betts]

That presumes those are the only choices and they aren't. IF voted down, and if this is as important to the City as they say it is, they will come back to the voters with it in another form. Case in point: when Edmond's tax for their new public safety building failed, did Edmond just give up on it? No, they are fixing what was thought to cause the vote to fail and present it to the voters again.

I think you're as likely to be wrong about this as you are to be right. It's easy to figure out what the public in Edmond didn't like about a tax for one building. As I said above, people who vote "no" on MAPS don't get to write an essay about how they think the language of the ballot should be fixed, or which projects should be left out of the "next" vote. Voting "no" because you don't like the language or you're not interested in some of the projects lumps you in with every other "no" voter, many of whom might have completely different agendas. Something as big as MAPS will almost assuredly not be put before the voters again for years. Yes, we might get to vote on things piece by piece over years, but the city will have egg on it's face, and the message from the voters will almost assuredly be interpreted as be "No new taxes for anything".

[jbrown84]

If it fails, we are much more likely to see the convention center (and maybe the streetcar) pushed through with bond issues or federal funds (if we're lucky). All the other projects would fall by the wayside. The trails would go back to being funded a tiny bit at a time, and the full OKC TRAILS masterplan would take 30 years to complete. Senior centers gone. New park gone. New sidewalks gone. Transit probably taking another 15-20 years.

You can take THAT RISK, or you can "risk" that maybe they pull the whitewater course in favor of a bigger park or a longer streetcar. It's not like the council is going to get away with diverting the funds to something that isn't just as beneficial as what was originally proposed. Things change over 7.5 years.

[kevinpate]

While I'm outside OKC and thus won't be voting either way, from the outside looking on, I'd offer this suggestion to the pro MAPs3 crowd.

Some of the posts border on coming across as -

hey, they're our government, just trust them to do the right
thing cause they are here to help.

If we don't all play along, they won't do nothing for years, if at all.

Not exactly inspiring stump speeches.

FWIW, I hope it goes through, and I hope they do stick to the announced ideas, but they sure aren't working much magic for it thus far.

[Midtowner]

I'm really late to the game, but why the clamoring for a PUBLIC TRUST???

A public trust with a narrow mission can be a good thing. You make the board members fiduciaries who are only empowered to spend the money for these specific, enumerated projects.

A public trust which has vast powers and basically operates in the shadows can be a bad thing. I fully agree. The OIA at one time and these days, OCURA were both, IMHO, agents of corruption and theft of the taxpayers' money.

If you set it up right though, it can be a good thing.

[betts]

While I'm outside OKC and thus won't be voting either way, from the outside looking on, I'd offer this suggestion to the pro MAPs3 crowd.

Some of the posts border on coming across as -

hey, they're our government, just trust them to do the right
thing cause they are here to help.

If we don't all play along, they won't do nothing for years, if at all.

Not exactly inspiring stump speeches.

FWIW, I hope it goes through, and I hope they do stick to the announced ideas, but they sure aren't working much magic for it thus far.

kevin, I think the posts have devolved to the themes you've mentioned above. On this forum, it has become a discussion more about who's got an agenda and whether we can trust our politicians than what the plans are. I don't know how we move past that. Everyone has pretty much commented on whether they like the plans or not, and I'm not sure what else you say beyond that point. It would probably be different if there were a line item ballot, as everyone would then be championing their favorite projects and worrying about whether they would pass. But, this vote is going to end up being more about trust and the concept of taxes in general than the projects themselves. Sadly.

[Larry OKC]

I think you're as likely to be wrong about this as you are to be right. It's easy to figure out what the public in Edmond didn't like about a tax for one building. ...

Yes and No...

There were probably as many reasons why people voted No/Yes in Edmond as there will be voting No/Yes for MAPS 3. Some were the no taxes under any circumstances crowd. Some were because of the funding method. Some were against the size of the building. Some were against the cost. Some were against the location. (All of this sound familiar?)

MAPS barely passed (54%) and they did analysis of the vote to see what the strength and weaknesses were. [NOT my idea] It failed on the South side of town. From the analysis, it was concluded that one of the main reasons was all of the MAPS projects were considered "North Side". This came in handy when they were considering MAPS 2 (MAPS for Kids). With it, they promised to significantly renovate (at least $1M), EVERY school in the system and build several new schools (North & South side). MAPS 2 passed much more easily.

The same argument was used in the Ford tax vote. "If we don't pass, the improvements won't happen and we won't get the NBA". If the tax hadn't passed, they would have figured out some other way to make the improvements (such as having the team owners pay, which was the City's original plan way back under MAPS).

Don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing for something that might fail by the same margin as something that passed. Similar number of projects in both. Again, IF THIS IS AS IMPORTANT to the City as they claim it is, it will be back in some form or another.

Can think of a couple of advantages to getting it passed now rather than later.

1. If the Ford tax is allowed to expire and not be replaced immediately with another tax, it will be obvious to everyone that this is indeed a tax increase. This is a much harder sell.

2. Most likely there will be a county tax needed to pay for the renovated or new county jail (if a sales tax, it too has to be passed by the voters). Currently they are pushing the "OKC has one of the lowest sales tax rates in the Metro". This is true, but if a County sales tax does happen, OKC will have one of the highest sales tax rates in the Metro (6 or 7 would be tied for the highest, and OKC would be next). Again, not as easy of a sell saying we have one of the highest rates as having one of the lowest.

[Larry OKC]

... But, this vote is going to end up being more about trust and the concept of taxes in general than the projects themselves. Sadly.

Agree completely, and the City has no one but themselves to blame on that one (since they have chosen to not mention ANY of the projects in the ballot or Ordinance, like they did with MAPS). They have deliberately chosen to remove (at least the pretense) of much of the accountability that was in MAPS.

Encourage everyone to go read the Ballot and Ordinances for MAPS and MAPS 3 that Doug has posted the link for elsewhere. Compare and then decide.

[betts]

The same argument was used in the Ford tax vote. "If we don't pass, the improvements won't happen and we won't get the NBA". If the tax hadn't passed, they would have figured out some other way to make the improvements (such as having the team owners pay, which was the City's original plan way back under MAPS).

Here you are wrong, I very strongly believe. There's no logic to the above statement. Had the Ford tax not passed, the team would be in Seattle and for sale, or they'd likely be in Kansas City, with its empty arena already paid for by city taxes. Especially with the economic times what they are. First of all, if OKC didn't approve paying for a new arena with public funds, the other owners would never have agreed to moving the team here. They all thought Seattle was a better NBA city, and they would have figured if the owners were going to have to spend their own money, they might as well do it in the city that had had the team for 41 years. If Oklahoma City wasn't willing to fund a new arena either, what made them a better option than Seattle? What made them a better "sports city"? Nothing I can think of. Bennett is only one of 30, and he's a rookie at that. He has no special pull with the other owners. Two voted against the move even with the prospect of an improved arena.

Secondly, I'm not sure the owners would have been willing to pony up another 100+ million when they were already on the hook for $425 million. I'm not sure there's evidence they have the $100 million right now. When the original MAPS tax was passed, I suspect the framers had no idea just how expensive sports teams would be 15 years later. Kansas City was sitting there ready, willing and free, and, had they moved, that's where they'd be, I can almost guarantee you. If you'd been following talk in the Kansas City papers, they were watching the Ford Center vote as closely as anyone, and Bennett had already been up there to visit the arena. I'm not sure the BOG would have even let the team move there, however. I think they'd be firmly in Seattle right now, and Balmer would be throwing lowball offers at the now desperate owners.

Don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing for something that might fail by the same margin as something that passed. Similar number of projects in both. Again, IF THIS IS AS IMPORTANT to the City as they claim it is, it will be back in some form or another.

It doesn't really matter if the city considers these projects important, because of the number of them. In addition, the "city" is subject to change over time. I'm sure "they" consider the convention center important, as said above, and that's the one that would be the most likely to show up again in some form. As for the rest, what do WE consider important? That's my concern. None of these projects considered separately are difference makers, except for, perhaps, public transit. What are WE as citizens going to do to make sure they get passed individually? I suspect the answer is: nothing. So, they may show up again in dribs and drabs in votes over the years. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get public transit. Maybe the city will continue buying a bit of land here and there with bond issues so that eventually (5, 7, 10 years) we can vote on a park again. But, I believe, as firmly as you seem to believe the opposite, that we won't see a true MAPS vote again for years, if ever.

[Larry OKC]

Hi Betts,

On the surface of things, I can understand why you believe that. If it was a theoretical, unknown NBA team what you said may very well be true. But it ignores the specifics of this particular relocation and the people involved. I won't go into detail right now because I am short on time, but can certainly dig that info up and present it for your consideration if you want.

The 2nd part of your post, the number of projects was mentioned because you discounted my Edmond example, because it was only one building.

You are correct, would it return under the same MAPS format? Maybe, maybe not, it all depends on which format they think would have the highest likelihood of getting passed (piecemeal, if by separate elections spread out over time, or grouping of like-kind projects, similar to the various ones under the G.O. bond issue vote). If it got voted down, chances are good they would drop the MAPS label and rebrand it something else. As long as that label gets things passed, they will continue to use it.

[Patrick]

STEVE!!!!! and all the rest... You make my point. That was an interesting list. Question for you. What is the unemployment rate???? What was it before MAPS? Where is all the jobs???? Steve who is going to police those buildings??? who is going to respond to the fires for those great structures??? whos going to repair and maintain the roads???? WHO??? Don't you understand that ALL services are stretched to the limits!!!!!!!!!! I got it maybe u don't care!! that sounds more like it. it has to directly affect you for you to see a problem...

The unemployment rate would've been a lot higher had companies like Devon and Chesapeake left OKC, and Devon likely would've had MAPS 1 not been passed. And anyways, MAPS wasn't about bringing in jobs, but about improving quality of life in OKC. With that though often times comes more jobs. Look at Steve's list....most of the investments on Steve's lists have led to job creation.

Police those buildings? Wha? Ummm, likely private security firms and the OKC PD as they currently do now. Respond to the fires? Ummmm...we have a fire dept, that was appropriately funded with new equipment with the last bond issues.

Roads? Covered by the recent close to 1 bill bond issue.

The MAPS program doesn't affect "ALL services are stretched to the limits!!!!!!!!!! ." Whether MAPS passes or fails doesn't have an impact on this. That's covered from the city's general budget.

[betts]

Hi Betts,

On the surface of things, I can understand why you believe that. If it was a theoretical, unknown NBA team what you said may very well be true. But it ignores the specifics of this particular relocation and the people involved. I won't go into detail right now because I am short on time, but can certainly dig that info up and present it for your consideration if you want.

The 2nd part of your post, the number of projects was mentioned because you discounted my Edmond example, because it was only one building.

You are correct, would it return under the same MAPS format? Maybe, maybe not, it all depends on which format they think would have the highest likelihood of getting passed (piecemeal, if by separate elections spread out over time, or grouping of like-kind projects, similar to the various ones under the G.O. bond issue vote). If it got voted down, chances are good they would drop the MAPS label and rebrand it something else. As long as that label gets things passed, they will continue to use it.

Larry, I don't think anyone cares what you or I think about the NBA team. I think you're wrong, and at the time of the election, I had inside information that you are wrong, which I still cannot really divulge. However, it's a moot point, regardless, as the team is here, the funds were passed, etc. Time for us to all let it go. I had a most excellent time at the game tonight, and most of the cost of my entertainment was on Mr. Bennett, et al. For which I am grateful.

As far as the rest goes, as I've said before, I'm not willing to gamble on piecemeal. MAPS will cost me so little money that I'm going to support it, lest we don't get all the projects I want. I'm going to gamble that our city councilpeople are trustworthy and will give us what they say they will. That way, it's not my fault if our city doesn't keep up the momentum from MAPS. I've done everything I could to keep it going.

[Patrick]

FWIW, we don't piecemeal capital improvement projects. Both the 2000 and 2007 bond issues included hundreds of projects.

The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election

The eleven propositions
Proposition 1

32 street resurfacing projects
60 street widening projects
4 new street projects, including infrastructure for the new downtown boulevard that will be where the Crosstown Expressway is now
85 rehabilitation and rebuilding projects which also include streetscapes
4 projects to improve ADA compliance on OKC Trails
1 project to improve bus shelter ADA compliance
1 project to purchase equipment
1 project for unlisted street improvements

Proposition 2

17 projects to replace load-restricted bridges
1 project for unlisted bridge improvements

Proposition 3

18 traffic signal projects
16 intersection improvement projects
1 unlisted traffic improvement project

Proposition 4

16 drainage improvement projects
1 unlisted drainage improvements project

Proposition 5

15 playground improvement projects for City parks
24 shelter improvement projects for City parks
48 projects to build and improve walking paths at City parks
9 projects to build basketball courts at City parks
26 projects to improve paving at City parks
12 projects for general park improvements
2 projects to build new neighborhood parks
15 projects to improve community centers in City parks
5 projects to improve park party houses and shelters
2 projects to improve golf course clubhouses
1 project to purchase land for the Core to Shore area
1 project for unlisted parks improvements


Proposition 6

1 project for Police headquarters improvements
1 project for Courts building improvements
1 project to build a new detox facility
1 project for a briefing new station
1 project for unlisted Police improvements

Proposition 7

3 new fire station projects
2 fire station reconstruction projects
1 project for unlisted Fire improvements

Proposition 8

5 projects for library improvements
1 project for unlisted library improvements

Proposition 9

1 project to improve facilities for General Services, Traffic, Parks & Recreation and the Public Works River Yard
1 project to extend the Oklahoma River 'Zone G'
1 project for unlisted facility improvements

Proposition 10

1 project to purchase new buses
1 project to add a River Trolley
1 project for the May Avenue COTPA facility
1 project for unlisted transit improvements

Proposition 11

Economic Development Incentive Program



City of Oklahoma City | Public Safety Capital Projects

[Larry OKC]

Betts, I am willing to drop the Ford tax issue if you are. I did mention it only because a similar argument was used for it as some are using for MAPS 3 (we won't get this if it doesn't pass and we won't get the chance again). You were the one going into why that was wrong. I can go into a lengthy discourse supporting my conclusion, but if you don't even want to consider it, that's fine. No harm, no foul. As you correctly pointed out, it is a done deal in any case (but still a LOT of unanswered questions). But I will leave that for another appropriate thread. As Doug would say, "Now back to your regularly scheduled program..."

[Larry OKC]

Patrick: understand what you are saying and maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. By piecemeal, I meant separate elections for the separate projects, or like way the 2007 Bond issue was done, separate Propositions (with one or more like-kind projects). Or the School Bond issue that had separate propositions. While recent bond elections have indeed included hundreds of projects, an election could certainly be a single project one (unlikely as the inclusion of other projects may win enough support). While there were many elements or sub-projects, even the Ford tax (sorry Betts) was boiled down to 2 main projects: the Practice Facility and improvements to the Ford.

[betts]

Betts, I am willing to drop the Ford tax issue if you are. I did mention it only because a similar argument was used for it as some are using for MAPS 3 (we won't get this if it doesn't pass and we won't get the chance again). You were the one going into why that was wrong. I can go into a lengthy discourse supporting my conclusion, but if you don't even want to consider it, that's fine. No harm, no foul. As you correctly pointed out, it is a done deal in any case (but still a LOT of unanswered questions). But I will leave that for another appropriate thread. As Doug would say, "Now back to your regularly scheduled program..."

Larry, I didn't bring it up to begin with. I've seen no reason to discuss the issues surrounding the Thunder move since it happened. Of course I don't want to consider it, because I don't think the circumstances surrounding the move are the least bit relevant to this discussion or any other discussion that isn't simply historical in nature. You cannot prove your assertions, and I'm not willing to prove mine, and so it's simply a waste of time and, I'm sure, of no interest to anyone else. Time to move on. They're here. The tax is being collected.