New info on MAPS 3

[metro]

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.

MAPS 3 style projects don't get done piecemeal is the problem Larry. Look at other cities. Each project has a core group of supporters and all the other special interest groups of the other projects will vote no on propositions other than theirs, even if ALL projects benefit everyone in the city, even if citizens CHOOSE not to use said amenities. Basically everyone cancels everyone out, so all that gets accomplished is wasting everyone's time and the thousands of dollars it costs to hold an election. Bottom line is these projects improve the quality of life in OKC, and it creates new jobs, retains existing employers willing to consider relocating, and attracts new employers (both local and out of state), and ultimately brings in more tax dollars.

[Patrick]

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.

Yeah, but again, had MAPS 1 been piecemealed, MAPS never would've had the huge impact that it did. Projects like the river, canal, and Ford Center probably never would've passed. Ford Center wasn't popular in the beginning because people back then couln't even picture a major league team coming here. Now, obviously, it's a huge part of downtown's resurrgence.

[Larry OKC]

MAPS 3 style projects don't get done piecemeal is the problem. ...

So what is the difference between the Capital Improvements that Patrick listed in the various piece-mealed propositions in the 2007 Bond Issue and what I was talking about happening if the Capital Improvements in MAPS 3 doesn't pass?

Are you saying if done Bond issue (piece-meal) style, they won't pass? Didn't all of the Propositions pass?

[Larry OKC]

Yeah, but again, had MAPS 1 been piecemealed, MAPS never would've had the huge impact that it did. Projects like the river, canal, and Ford Center probably never would've passed. Ford Center wasn't popular in the beginning because people back then couln't even picture a major league team coming here. Now, obviously, it's a huge part of downtown's resurrgence.

There was some overlap, but the projects were built piece-mealed. They didn't all get built and open at the same time, it was over a period of years. The "huge impact" was spread out. What's the difference in that and the same projects getting built thru separate elections? The same question I posed in the above post applies.

But all of that gets away from the point that if MAPS 3 for some reason doesn't pass, the projects that City leadership consider to be critical will return later.

[betts]

There was some overlap, but the projects were built piece-mealed. They didn't all get built and open at the same time, it was over a period of years. The "huge impact" was spread out. What's the difference in that and the same projects getting built thru separate elections? The same question I posed in the above post applies.

But all of that gets away from the point that if MAPS 3 for some reason doesn't pass, the projects that City leadership consider to be critical will return later.

I believe Patrick's point was that each of these projects, individually, might not pass. The argument for the beauty of the original MAPS project, which has been brought up for years, and why it's even been touted in the national media, was that each of the projects appealed to different groups and so a coalition of people supported it. Very few of the original MAPS projects probably would have passed individually. And, yet, we're proud of what MAPS wrought. People with vision knew more than we did, and knew what the city needed. We might need a new convention center, but it won't pass, at least according to current polling. The city park won't pass on it's own. We'll probably get the streetcar, and probably no one in local government will care enough to push for bike trails financing. And yet, using the MAPS concept, because it has cachet and people understand what prior MAPS have done for the city, we have a chance to get all of them.

I might not have voted for the canal, the Oklahoma River improvements or the Redhawks stadium individually or the Ford Center and maybe the library, because I never spent time downtown and had no interest in downtown. To be honest with you, the only thing I had interest in was finishing up my training and getting out of Oklahoma City as fast as I possibly could. MAPS is probably the single biggest reason I still live here, and it's certainly the reason I live downtown. It had a huge impact on not only the city itself, but also the residents. I see this next one as being, if not as, at least almost as important as the first. Now, we've got the beginnings of an urban culture, we've got some things that appeal our young people. By passing the next MAPS, we might get more of them to stay, we might be getting closer to being a city that people admire. Those are good things with value almost immeasurable, never mind the economic development and job creation factors.

[Larry OKC]

MAPS 3 style projects don't get done piecemeal is the problem Larry. ....

LOL, forgot to mention the most recent MAPS 3 style project that indeed DID get passed piecemeal...the Ford Improvements!

They passed by a respectable margin even though the Mayor said it was going to be an uphill vote (similar to recent statements from the Mayor about MAPS 3).

[Larry OKC]

... The argument for the beauty of the original MAPS project, which has been brought up for years, and why it's even been touted in the national media, was that each of the projects appealed to different groups and so a coalition of people supported it. Very few of the original MAPS projects probably would have passed individually. ...

I might not have voted for the canal, the Oklahoma River improvements or the Redhawks stadium individually or the Ford Center and maybe the library, because ....

I agree to an extent. Because that may or may not be the case. As evidenced by the myriad of projects and numerous individual propositions in the 2007 bond issue that Patrick posted, ...didn't EVERY ONE of those propositions pass? Didn't the single issue Ford Improvements tax pass (by a respectable margin)?

No guarantee of course, pre-MAPS the City had a pretty poor pass rate when it came to bond elections (due to broken promises or any statements of intent to the contrary). The recent County Tinker Bond issue...some propositions passed, some failed.

But back to MAPS 3...which projects mentioned in the Ballot or the Ordinance are going to appeal to "different groups"?

[betts]

The ONLY reason the double issue Ford Center proposal passed was because we got something for it. People were voting for the NBA, far more than Ford Center improvements, although there were a few voters who wanted a better experience for concerts, etc. But I suspect that it wouldn't have passed if it were a vote just to improve the Ford Center to make it nicer. I would have voted for it, but I bet many people wouldn't have.

Clearly, if you read the Gazette article, there were far varying levels of support for different projects in the new MAPS proposal. I suspect that the business community will be the group most in favor of a new convention center. While I think ours is pretty mediocre right now, most of the other projects appeal to me far more. I'd probably vote for it just because I think that we probably will start losing what convention business we do have over the next ten years, but it will almost assuredly not pass if it stands alone.

The Park also doesn't have a lot of support overall either. I'm not sure why, since to me this is the most important and city changing of all of the proposals. But, I think most people who haven't visited other cities with iconic parks are not really sure what they would do with this one. Perhaps they think it's going to be similar to any of our neighborhood parks, I don't know.

Bike trails? I'd be voting for this one, because I like to ride my bike, and it would be nice to be able to ride someplace other than Lake Hefner and the river. I'm certainly in favor of anything that improves my ability to ride to places I want to go. But, what percentage of our population rides bikes and when looking at the price tag would think it's worth it? Nevermind the fact that more people SHOULD be riding both for transportation and recreation.

The kayak course will appeal to recreation and water sports people, but it's a pretty limited group.

Senior centers? I'm sure this was designed precisely to target one group of voters that hasn't always been soundly in favor of MAPS and who don't like taxes in general. They're not necessarily going to be around for a 25 year plan, and so the big picture may not be as appealing. But, I'm not sure I would vote for this myself.

A streetcar and better transit options? This one has the most widespread support and would almost assuredly pass. It's the only one I think is probably a slam dunk. It too has the potential to be city changing, but by itself, it's going to have only a fair amount of impact.

Again, what proposals would be probably see put before us if MAPS is rejected. In two to five years, the convention center.

Interestingly, people in charge of the city are probably much less interested in the streetcar than the populace. We might not even get a chance to vote on the one thing that would be most likely to pass if it stood alone.

As I said before, we'd probably see sidewalks crop up in a bond issue, and perhaps we'd continue buying land in the blighted area south of Reno in hopes of someday getting a park. But, the only issues that I feel certain we would see again sometime is the convention center and perhaps some money for new buses.

[metro]

LOL, forgot to mention the most recent MAPS 3 style project that indeed DID get passed piecemeal...the Ford Improvements!

They passed by a respectable margin even though the Mayor said it was going to be an uphill vote (similar to recent statements from the Mayor about MAPS 3).

Yes, but it was a SINGLE issue, so you're comparing apples to oranges. Had it been multiple issues up for vote, it may have been a completely different story, similar to what the "hypothetical" situation we would be facing today if some of you got your way.

[Larry OKC]

Yes, but it was a SINGLE issue, so you're comparing apples to oranges. Had it been multiple issues up for vote, it may have been a completely different story, similar to what the "hypothetical" situation we would be facing today if some of you got your way.

But didn't you say:

MAPS 3 style projects don't get done piecemeal is the problem. ...

Which is it? The Ford Center improvements were a MAPS 3 project that got pulled out to be a single issue (piece-meal) approach.

Again, the multiple issues (propositions) Patrick posted of the 2007 bond issue (which included a myriad of Capital Improvements) all passed, didn't they?

[metro]

No Ford Center improvements ARE NOT a MAPS 3 project, simply put, MAPS 3 has been presented and there are NO Ford Center improvements in it, period! MAPS 3 was not even announced at the time of that vote, simply speculated. It wasn't a piecemeal vote where there were multiple items to vote on. Had there been, special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money. Apples to oranges.

[Larry OKC]

Betts,

I appreciate your response but you didn't answer the question I asked:

"But back to MAPS 3...which projects mentioned in the Ballot or the Ordinance are going to appeal to "different groups"?"

[Larry OKC]

No Ford Center improvements ARE NOT a MAPS 3 project, simply put, MAPS 3 has been presented and there are NO Ford Center improvements in it, period! MAPS 3 was not even announced at the time of that vote, simply speculated. It wasn't a piecemeal vote where there were multiple items to vote on. Had there been, special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money. Apples to oranges.

I am sorry but you are wrong on that, the Mayor clearly stated that the Ford improvements were being pulled out of MAPS 3 because of the timing of the NBA relocation committee vote. They were going to be a MAPS 3 item (of course they aren't in there now, that would be silly to include them again).

You do realize that no specific project is included in the Ballot or Ordinance don't you?

Again, your contention that "special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money" isn't supported by the 2007 bond issue Patrick posted, where every one of the piece-mealed propositions passed. For example, if MAPS 3 was presented this way:

The length of the temporary tax will be determined by the number of propositions that pass. If all 9 Propositions pass, the one cent tax would be collected for 7 years and 9 months. If less than all 9 propositions pass, the tax will be shortened to the amount projected for each proposition.

Proposition 1
A new one cent tax would be collected for a 70 acre downtown park. Projected cost $130M

Proposition 2
A new one cent tax would be collected for a new Convention Center. Projected cost $280M

Proposition 3
A new one cent tax would be collected for a Downtown Streetcar system. Projected cost $130M


In the example, the projects are presented piece-meal (separate propositions) that are voted on separately. Voting on #1 doesn't "cancel out" #3. You can vote for one or all or any combination of the above.

[betts]

Again, your contention that "special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money" isn't supported by the 2007 bond issue Patrick posted, where every one of the piece-mealed propositions passed. For example, if MAPS 3 was presented this way:

The length of the temporary tax will be determined by the number of propositions that pass. If all 9 Propositions pass, the one cent tax would be collected for 7 years and 9 months. If less than all 9 propositions pass, the tax will be shortened to the amount projected for each proposition.

Proposition 1
A new one cent tax would be collected for a 70 acre downtown park. Projected cost $130M

Proposition 2
A new one cent tax would be collected for a new Convention Center. Projected cost $280M

Proposition 3
A new one cent tax would be collected for a Downtown Streetcar system. Projected cost $130M


In the example, the projects are presented piece-meal (separate propositions) that are voted on separately. Voting on #1 doesn't "cancel out" #3. You can vote for one or all or any combination of the above.

So, Larry, which of the above propositions WOULD pass? Proposition 3, perhaps. 1 and 2, at least by current polls, would not. And yet, as a whole, there might be enough items that appeal to a coalition of voters that the entire project will pass.

When looking at the first MAPS: Which of the following would have passed as a single proposition? The library, perhaps. Maybe the Civic Center. I'm not sure any of the others would have passed. It's the coalition concept that works. 25% of people want a new baseball park, so they vote yes. 25% hope to get an NBA or NHL team or want a better venue for concerts, so they vote yes. Almost no one "gets" the canal concept, but it's in the package so what the hey. That's why it worked as a whole, but probably would not have individually.

The last bond issue was for streets, bridges, traffic control, maintenance, drainage, police, fire, parks. Basically, what most people consider essential services. That's the kind of piecemeal issue that is more likely to pass, because everyone needs those things and doesn't consider them a luxury item. You're talking apples and oranges.

[metro]

betts: The last bond issue was for streets, bridges, traffic control, maintenance, drainage, police, fire, parks. Basically, what most people consider essential services. That's the kind of piecemeal issue that is more likely to pass, because everyone needs those things and doesn't consider them a luxury item. You're talking apples and oranges.

Exactly my point, not to mention, Oklahoma is one of the worst states for voter turnout, and especially in "bond elections". Only people who are seriously informed and care even consider turning out to bond elections. It's been proven mathmatically. Bond issues are not sexy issues, and usually the people who care enough to vote, are actually on board with bond issues, since they are typically infrastructure.

MAPS, although somewhat infrastructure improvements, are more "luxury" or "quality of life" issues. Roads and Bridges would never be in a MAPS style high profile tax.

[Larry OKC]

So, Larry, which of the above propositions WOULD pass? ... And yet, as a whole, there might be enough items that appeal to a coalition of voters that the entire project will pass.

When looking at the first MAPS: Which of the following would have passed as a single proposition? ... It's the coalition concept that works. ... That's why it worked as a whole, but probably would not have individually. ...

Some probably would have passed and some would have failed. But the problem with the MAPS styled "all or nothing" format is that it is called "log rolling" a concept that the State Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional.

[Midtowner]

Some probably would have passed and some would have failed. But the problem with the MAPS styled "all or nothing" format is that it is called "log rolling" a concept that the State Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional.

Larry, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Have a look at the Oklahoma Constitution. It's a really important document for law in Oklahoma, but most folks are only marginally aware of its existence, and even fewer folks have read it:

OCIS Document Index

Direct your attention to Article V, section 57:

Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes; and no law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length: Provided, That if any subject be embraced in any act contrary to the provisions of this section, such act shall be void only as to so much of the law as may not be expressed in the title thereof. (emphasis added)

Article V, section 57 is what you are clearly referring to. There are quite a few cases on this subject. In all cases, the Supreme Court was invalidating an act of the legislature which offended, and by its plain language, this act is a limitation on the powers of the legislature. Further, it falls within Article V, which exclusively pertains to the legislature.

Where we do start to run into problems with the language of the current measure is Article 10, section 19:

Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which said tax is levied, and no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose. (emphasis added)

First, let me draw your attention to the first bolded passage. Note that it is a limitation on the legislature AND on municipalities, counties, towns, etc. This is a significant difference. It is much easier to argue that this passage is applicable and the other is not. In fact, by their plain language, that is the case.

Second, as to the second paragraph, this is where you and I might see eye to eye vis-a-vis the Constitutionality of this measure. The plain language of the Oklahoma Constitution requires that the tax must "specify distinctly" the purpose for which it is levied. The current language merely states "capital improvements" -- something which is neither distinct nor specific.

My conclusion is that logrolling is hunky dory just so long as the municipality specifies distinctly the purpose for which the tax is being used. In other words, the ballot has to actually express what the money can be used for and it can be used for nothing else (none of that [money not being used for other purposes] happened with MAPS I or II).

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry, I'm not so sure about logrolling as applied to municipal sales tax issues being unconstitutional.

That conclusion was my 1st, also, since I didn't logically see a reason to differentiate Oklahoma Legislature and/or initiative petition issues from revenue measures by municipalities. But, as Midtowner pointed out much earlier, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions have to do with an express provision in the constitution which pertain precisely and only to the state class, and I could find no similar provision which pertained to cities or counties.

I could locate no Supreme Court decision which address logrolling in a municipal context. If you go here ... Web Search ... and type in the search word "logrolling" and mark "Oklahoma Cases" as the database to search, no municipal cases will turn up in the search.

ON EDIT: Ha! I see that Midtowner and I were posting simultaneously. Must be so, whatever we said!

[kevinpate]

What may become real interesting, not necessarily in a good way, is if someone initiates litigation challenging the absence of specificity and its resulting blank check grant to the city by the taxpayers.

There are time crunches at play in order for MAPs3 to be promoted as only an extension of an existing tax. Not real sure the time crunch allows much room for a detour through the courts.

In the long run, an extension of any set to expire tax is actually a new tax, but to some folks, being able to not call it a new tax sits much better with them. if litigation does muddy the water, if the projects are desired enough, new, old, even more than a penny, shouldn't get in the way.

Time will tell.

[Doug Loudenback]

The blog article I've been working on for about a week and it's still not finished is about the history of 1993 MAPS, except that I decided to start with Mayor Coats term first ... which took longer than I expected. During his term, 3 tax initiatives were tried. 2 failed outright ... they were of the logrolling class.

The last, the so-called Six To Fix, broke up items into six separate propositions. Only one of those provisions, though, was for a penny sales tax which would have lasted 4 years ... it failed ... but, standing alone, it was a "logrolling" tax which covered multiple items. The domed arena at the fairgrounds was a distinct item, a bond election, and it failed miserably.

I've gotten to the point in the article about writing about Mayor Norick's term and have pretty much finished my research. In fact, voters were presented a good bit more information about proposed projects than we've been given in MAPS 3, for whatever that's worth. The article will be quite specific about that detail when it gets to that point.

[Larry OKC]

Thanks for the interesting info Doug & Midtowner...there were a couple of articles/blogs that mentioned a new law/change in law and logrolling but they never cited the law...any info on that? (Will try to find the articles where mentioned).

[Larry OKC]

What may become real interesting, not necessarily in a good way, is if someone initiates litigation challenging the absence of specificity and its resulting blank check grant to the city by the taxpayers.

There are time crunches at play in order for MAPs3 to be promoted as only an extension of an existing tax. Not real sure the time crunch allows much room for a detour through the courts.

In the long run, an extension of any set to expire tax is actually a new tax, but to some folks, being able to not call it a new tax sits much better with them. if litigation does muddy the water, if the projects are desired enough, new, old, even more than a penny, shouldn't get in the way.

Time will tell.

You are correct and it could be a concern. In all likelihood the challenge would come after the fact (sometimes courts don't want to act until the "harm" has happened). But that can cause other problems as some of the Supreme Court ones with the Legislature point out, they were reluctant to "unstir the pot" as it were (a longer time had passed, bond issues had already been sold, etc.) Think some were only partially stopped (some bonds hadn't been sold yet, so those were stopped but the other log rolled ones that had been sold were left undisturbed). Correct me if I'm wrong Midtowner ;-)

[Midtowner]

Thanks for the interesting info Doug & Midtowner...there were a couple of articles/blogs that mentioned a new law/change in law and logrolling but they never cited the law...any info on that? (Will try to find the articles where mentioned).

All of those cases (various cases titled Fent v. someone else) were brought by Jerry Fent in response to various acts by the legislature. I think there have been three fairly recently. In the first, the Supreme Court said (I'm paraphrasing) "We'll let it by this once, but don't let it happen again." The second time, they invalidated some 160 page measure which had lots of parts which clearly had nothing to do with each other (I read it, it was no big thing, some if it was about certain new types of partnerships and whatnot); finally, we had a measure which contained cash for projects -- one benefiting OKC, one benefiting someone else, one benefiting the Tulsa area -- all but the 'something else' was invalidated (since construction had already started on the something else).

The key is that ALL of those cases were about promulgations by the state legislature, not a municipality.

One does not necessarily affect the other, and by the clear terms of the Constitution, it shouldn't. This "one subject" thing, IMHO, is an attempt by someone to justify something which shouldn't be there. They could have had multiple subjects so long as they were enumerated. No one has ever challenged section 57 because no municipality has tried to do this before.

[kevinpate]

Just FYI, I was referring to an action post election. I don't see someone trying to challenge a lack of specificity in a rejected ordinance. Most folks have beeter use for their funds. Regrets if that was not clear.

[Larry OKC]

Since we are clarifying...

Since I wasn't sure if it was the state constitution provision or a new/changed law (as other places have said), that is why I said: "But the problem with the MAPS styled "all or nothing" format is that it is called "log rolling" a CONCEPT that the State Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional."

In other words, I didn't mean to say that the Ballot was unconstitutional, only that log rolling was unconstitutional for the Legislature (and some have said that it applies to every subdivision government function in the State as well...again, don't know if that is the case or not.)

Probably not saying it right again....LOL