Yes Maps 3

[wsucougz]

Any bold public project is going to have its fair share of detractors, that's the way it's always been. Most things that were truly worth doing seem to be like that, in retrospect.

That a podunk town like Oklahoma City dared to dream big with the original MAPs series is something in and of itself.

Now let's continue to go big and bold and shock the world!

YES.

[shane453]

I fear it won't pass- and my dreams of living in a city that continues to make exponential progress will come to an end. This exponential progress is on the line. I can't imagine those who would have us return to indifferent stagnation. What is our backup plan? The opposition is very vocal.

The most critical element of this plan to me personally is the streetcar and transit hub- if these things are not somehow built within the next 5 years or so, the vision I have imagined of the urban Oklahoma City I want to live in when I graduate will be unattainable.

There have been reports showing that my generation is different from the former generation in that it places more importance on location than career- that is, while older people would settle in a place because of their job, the current generation would be more likely to choose an ideal city first and worry about a job there second. We have to make ourselves into an ideal city for the next generation.

I do not want to leave- Vote YES, please.

[kevinpate]

I fear it won't pass ...

If such fears cause any YES folks to skip their chance to vote, the fears could become reality. If the folks who want it to pass do go vote because (a) it's important enough to them to take the time and (b) they know in a low turnout every vote truly does count, then the YES votes should prevail. Not by a lot mind you, but they'll probably have their way.

Just don't forget to go vote that day. Those of us who canna vote but like seeing how different OKC is today compared to late 80's are counting on ya to show up.

[okcpulse]

If such fears cause any YES folks to skip their chance to vote, the fears could become reality. If the folks who want it to pass do go vote because (a) it's important enough to them to take the time and (b) they know in a low turnout every vote truly does count, then the YES votes should prevail. Not by a lot mind you, but they'll probably have their way.

Just don't forget to go vote that day. Those of us who canna vote but like seeing how different OKC is today compared to late 80's are counting on ya to show up.

I would be voting yes if I lived there, so I am hoping the masses that do support MAPS 3 will domenstrate their support by voting yes. My family will be voting yes. I ask all of you to do the same.

[betts]

I wouldn't miss this election for the world, and my entire family is voting. My son registered to vote just so he could vote "yes" (his first election!), as he's interested in staying in OKC and wants to see it grow and improve.

[sroberts24]

All of my family is voting yes, all but the cops in the family... thankfully none of them live in OKC!

[purplemonkeythief]

All of my family is voting no. Everyone in my neighborhood has said they're voting no.

There's absolutely nothing stopping the city from using the money for anything they want, including things that aren't even listed on the proposal. The way the proposal is worded gives the city the opportunity to spend the money on anything -but- the items listed on the proposalm including the streetcar system.

When they reword the proposal and/or let us vote on each item individually, I'll change my position.

[Urban Pioneer]

Purple, if you think our city council and Mayor is going to commit political suicide and have hundreds of angry people at city council meetings, then I don't think you have much understanding of how things work.

[purplemonkeythief]

Purple, if you think our city council and Mayor is going to commit political suicide and have hundreds of angry people at city council meetings, then I don't think you have much understanding of how things work.

Then why did they word it in such a way that allows them to do whatever they want with the money?

[wsucougz]

The most critical element of this plan to me personally is the streetcar and transit hub

Yep - I think if they axed the convention center and spent the whole $700 odd million on streetcar and transit, we'd be better off in the long run. Although I do think the park is going to be great, too - and the rapids.

[Urban Pioneer]

Then why did they word it in such a way that allows them to do whatever they want with the money?

Because it is against the law to "bundle" all of the projects spelled out under one box. You know as well as the rest of the general public that the brilliance in MAPS is that there is something for everyone. No one proposal would easily pass on its own as the Gazette poll reflects. We have a wide range of people that have very different perspectives on what type of public improvements are good improvements.

We voted our elected officials in. They have been responsible with their decisions. Voting for MAPS is voting in confidence that they can continue to do more responsibly.

[shane453]

Encouraging to see those whose families will be voting yes.

Then why did they word it in such a way that allows them to do whatever they want with the money?

It will be politically impossible for "them" to "do whatever they want" with the money.

What has OKC government done to deserve suspicion in the first place? Our city government in the last 20 years has handled one of the most innovative and significant public/private initiatives for urban development EVER with great citizen oversight and perfect accountability. They do not deserve mistrust.

However, I do agree council could have done a better job ensuring voters that the non-specific ballot language will not be abused (ie resolution specifying what money must be spent on if MAPS 3 passes)

[purplemonkeythief]

Because it is against the law to "bundle" all of the projects spelled out under one box. You know as well as the rest of the general public that the brilliance in MAPS is that there is something for everyone. No one proposal would easily pass on its own as the Gazette poll reflects. We have a wide range of people that have very different perspectives on what type of public improvements are good improvements.

We voted our elected officials in. They have been responsible with their decisions. Voting for MAPS is voting in confidence that they can continue to do more responsibly.

What is that law?

Where is it written, in the OK constitution? give me a link to it.

Was it a court decision? give me a link

The city has been asked to identify this "law" and has responded with silence.


Here's what the OK Constitution says:

"Section X-19: Specification of purpose of tax - Devotion to another purpose.
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."

The way the MAPS3 proposal is worded leaves no one project specified, nor the whole of the listed projects specified. It is worded in such a way as to bypass Article 10 Section 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution so that the money can be legally used by the city in any way they see fit without actually accomplishing any of the goals of MAPS3 which people are looking forward to.

All the city has to do is call what they're spending the money on a "Capital Improvement", it doesn't even have to be listed on the MAPS3 proposal.

[MGE1977]

Encouraging to see those whose families will be voting yes.



It will be politically impossible for "them" to "do whatever they want" with the money.

Bass Pro.

[HOT ROD]

Bass Pro was not MAPS, was it?

[Midtowner]

Encouraging to see those whose families will be voting yes.



It will be politically impossible for "them" to "do whatever they want" with the money.

What has OKC government done to deserve suspicion in the first place? Our city government in the last 20 years has handled one of the most innovative and significant public/private initiatives for urban development EVER with great citizen oversight and perfect accountability. They do not deserve mistrust.

However, I do agree council could have done a better job ensuring voters that the non-specific ballot language will not be abused (ie resolution specifying what money must be spent on if MAPS 3 passes)

You might have to go back a tad farther than 20 years, but a lot of citizens still remember the OIA scandals and the misuse of public trusts to cover up the funneling of public money to private interests by the 'captains of industry' of the time.

But aside from that, during MAPS I, the Use Tax portion of the MAPS money was used to build Bass Pro -- a concept which should have been and still is incompatible with what lower Bricktown was supposed to be.

That said, they did actually do everything they promised to under MAPS I and there really wasn't any sort of effective enforcement mechanism to force them to do those things...

[Urban Pioneer]

What is that law?

Where is it written, in the OK constitution? give me a link to it.

Was it a court decision? give me a link

The city has been asked to identify this "law" and has responded with silence.


Here's what the OK Constitution says:

"Section X-19: Specification of purpose of tax - Devotion to another purpose.
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."

The way the MAPS3 proposal is worded leaves no one project specified, nor the whole of the listed projects specified. It is worded in such a way as to bypass Article 10 Section 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution so that the money can be legally used by the city in any way they see fit without actually accomplishing any of the goals of MAPS3 which people are looking forward to.

All the city has to do is call what they're spending the money on a "Capital Improvement", it doesn't even have to be listed on the MAPS3 proposal.

This whole discussion of the legal has been debated on nearly every thread. lol I know that it is on the MAPS Facts thread. Extend this discussion on there.

[purplemonkeythief]

This whole discussion of the legal has been debated on nearly every thread. lol I know that it is on the MAPS Facts thread. Extend this discussion on there.

Yes, and it's gone unanswered on nearly every thread. Why should this one be any different?

[HOT ROD]

purple, I dont disagree with you actually - there should be something the city could do to ensure the projects are completed.

However, it would seem rather silly to me to spell out each project on a ballot when MAPS III should capture it all.

As was stated before, the city has done well so far with MAPS - why should we doubt them now. And, if you do doubt them - instead of voting NO to remove the tax why not get more involved to ensure the money is spent right?

Why not try to be on the oversight committee?

I totally agree we need to hold the city leaders accountable, but voting NO is letting them off the hook - so to say (because there will not be anything to account). Instead, if you agree the projects will make a positive impact if done properly, vote YES and make damn sure you are at the oversight and city meetings to hold them accountable.

[Midtowner]

Why not try to be on the oversight committee?

The oversight committee will be appointed by the current committee, probably will consist of well-connected political supporters, business leaders, doctors and lawyers and such and will have zero coercive power.

[DavidGlover]

Midtowner is wrong - the Mayor approves or denies who is on the committee - anyone can suggest - mayor decides. The committee can only suggest - only the city council can make actual changes to the projects - stop, start, add, subtract, cancel, change any project by a simple majority vote.

[Midtowner]

I said nothing about how selection would happen, just who would be selected based upon my knowledge of past committees. Also, as I said, no coercive power. You do know what that means, right Mr. Glover?

[betts]

We have two choices: to vote yes or to vote no. Both of them require faith that someone in our government will do what we want them to do. Yes, those who vote yes will have to trust that our government follows through with the MAPS proposals as outlined. However, those who vote "no" who assure us that they would be only too happy to vote for MAPS if the language were changed, or if the projects were outlined differently, or if the policemen and firemen would get more help are also trusting that the MAPS proposals will show up in an election again sometime. They have no assurance that it will happen, and yet they are telling us to trust that our city government will do the right thing and re-present these proposals to us in a better format.

So, I weigh which group is more likely to be right, and I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that if we pass MAPS we are far more likely to see these proposals accomplished than if we don't. Then I look at how much money I'm gambling that the city will do what they say they do. The evidence I can find suggests that it will be about ten to twenty cents a day. I think about how much money I waste in a day for things I don't really need: I buy a cup of coffee, I drive somewhere I really could walk, I buy a magazine I'll read for 30 minutes and then throw away, I buy something I really don't need because it's calories I shouldn't be consuming, I turn the heat up too high when it's cold, or the airconditioning too low when it's hot. I don't think twice about wasting ten to twenty cents and I get nothing for it. So, I think I can gamble the same amount of money that I'm going to see these projects built as outlined. And, if I'm right, I've improved my quality of life a thousand-fold. I think there's a 90% chance at worst. Anyone take those odds on a lottery ticket worth $777 million? I'm going to.

[DavidGlover]

I said nothing about how selection would happen...

Look what you said above - you say exactly about how you thought the "selection would happen"

Midtowner says above "The oversight committee will be appointed by the current committee..."

Not the way it works Midtowner - The mayor decides NOT the current comm.

[iron76hd]

i've heard some numbers..

No's allegedly have it if the election was held today.

I changed about 8 undecided folks today. Had a lot of No's on the South Side. I did have 4 Yes votes not bad considering the few hundred I talked too. Nice folks. I couldn't argue with their motive to vote YES. City Contracts are what their company plans to keep if they vote YES.

My neighbors on either side and across the street are No's. All No's on both sides of my family. My friends neighbors are all NO's.

Vote NO purple. You're on the right side on this one. Good luck to all though.