MAPS Opposition Fliers

[Chance23]

Urban Pioneer has an excellent exposition regarding the transit system, and why the plan is to start with a streetcar on the mass transit threat, that I would suggest you read. I think many of us want to see much better mass transit in Oklahoma City, but we have to have a realistic understanding of what is feasible, what the costs are, what a logical time frame is, and how monies can be obtained that don't necessarily have to come from sales taxes.

I never spoke against the mass-transit system, so this statement is irrelevant.

I'm not a big fan of the state fair plans, because I don't go to the state fair. But, I accept that with the MAPS concept, not everything in the proposal excites every voter. As far as sidewalks go, people keep forgetting about the 12/07 bond issue which passed and which provides money for miles and miles of new sidewalks. MAPS will too, so sidewalks have actually been addressed. That December bond issue, which also will provide a great deal of money for road improvement throughout the metro, seems to have been missed by almost everyone, as people keep bringing up sidewalks and roads in their anti-MAPS arguments.

Because people see that nothing is being done, but the city is jumping into something huge that's just for downtown. They can give them lip-service, but progress has stalled. What are the odds that MAPS projects won't face the same slowdown if it passes?

Is my saying I want a downtown park any different than you saying you don't? It's a personal opinion. That's what a forum is: a place where people can discuss their differing opinions. There's almost nothing being said here that's truth completely free of interpretation, and there are almost always multiple sides to any argument. I happen to see development of the core of a city as important, especially in one with a core that has been as neglected for years as ours has. Other people think differently, clearly. Some people consider cities like Boston ideal, others like big sprawling cities like Dallas. There's no right or wrong here.

I get that you don't really want to actually debate anything, and would rather cheer lead. That's fine, but if that's the case don't make other people's arguments for them. There's no point in you even responding if it's not to things that have actually been said. You're not actually answering any questions, even ones that should be easy to answer if they are true (like when you said there were MAPS rebates for low income families. That's simply a matter of providing an actual source). It's not all just differing opinions, it's asking questions and actually participating in critical thought.

I never said a downtown park is a bad thing (in fact, if you'll actually read the post you'll see that much), I questioned whether or not the value truly is what people are claiming and whether it's more valuable to have a large park there than parks in other areas of the city that don't have parks. The facts I've stated were that, in all major cities, large parks were all located elsewhere and that the highest concentration of parks is already close to the core of the city, while citizens on the outskirts (who are being asked to pay for it)

Second, I didn't say development for downtown was a bad thing. I'm asking what a person who doesn't live or work there in this city has to gain by it. That's not expressing an opinion, it's asking a question. It's a large city, everyone is paying for it

[Chance23]

You know what continually amazes me is when people claim that other parts of the city are being neglected in favor of downtown. The truth is, downtown got to its current condition after decades of the city catering to outlying parts of the city. Instead of the outer realms of OKC asking for equal funding they need to understand that MAPS is equal funding. The downtown core has been neglected for 40+ years.

When the city was building Will Rogers park, Lincoln Park, Earlywine Park, where was a downtown park?

When the city was laying water lines and streets all over the prairie, where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the city was widening Memorial where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the City was making improvements to Lake Hefner where was the equal funding for downtown?

When the city was building public golf courses all over the place, where was the equal funding for downtown?

When new libraries were being built all over the outer reaches of OKC where was the funding for a downtown library?

MAPS is the equal funding you claim you want so bad.

A few qualms with that argument.

1: Without numbers, you can't really say it's equal. The fact that these projects were funded in the past, and now downtown is doesn't mean anything. Equal would be if each region of the city got the same maps funding MAPS is giving to downtown. Say there are five regions, NE, NW, SE, SW and the central core. Make them a startign squad of basketball players. You give one player $40 million and the other players $10 million each, and then say that they're all being paid equally. They're not. Without numbers, that argument isn't really valuable. We need to know how much money each of the regions has gotten over the same period to determine if it's equitable.

2: People weren't really living in downtown, but now that there are some people living there, a lot of the funding is being funneled directly to it and everyone is being asked to pay. What portion of the pie of funding drives has been put toward downtown development compared to NE side development? That gives a better picture.

[ljbab728]

There may be something to what he is saying, think he may be talking about the not so cheap residential that is going up/recently opened the past couple of years. The Mayor even joked he couldn't afford to live downtown.

I agree that some of the new downtown area housing has a very high cost per square foot but for over all cost it isn't anywhere near the elite status of quite a few other areas. The original post was implying that the new park would mainly benefit the wealthiest when that obviously isn't true. I am in a low income bracket and don't live anywhere near the park but it's amenities would certainly entice me to go there often. Having your own neighborhood park is certainly a priority but there is no way to have it close to the other attractions of the dowtown area.

[OSUFan]

MikeOKC, vote NO, I promise if you do and it goes down in flames, you will have another chance to vote on a better plan.

Seriously doubts this happens. If MAPS is voted down I think it will be a long time before you see anything else brought to the voters.

[Chance23]

Seriously doubts this happens. If MAPS is voted down I think it will be a long time before you see anything else brought to the voters.

I've never understood this line of thinking. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that, if this ballot fails, the city leaders would throw up their hands and surrender? I think they've shown a commitment to trying to develop the city, so I don't see why would suddenly give up if it failed, especially since most of these people are politicians and businessmen, fields where failure is always present and just a step toward further success.

And if that is the case, isn't that just a bad spot to be in in general, if leaders aren't willing to amend their measures to try to get more approval?

[BOBTHEBUILDER]

Chance23,

Excellent point.

[betts]

MikeOKC, vote NO, I promise if you do and it goes down in flames, you will have another chance to vote on a better plan.

You can promise? And, what is the "better plan"? Each of us is an individual and wants to see different things for our city. Why should the next plan necessarily be better? Maybe they'll include the things I don't care about and leave out the ones I do. Where's the guarantee there will even be a next plan, or that it will be put together in the next five years? It's easy to make promises on a message board, but I don't see any data showing anyone here really can guarantee anyone of anything. We can predict, we can state what we think, but there's nothing certain.

I believe the opposite. I think that if MAPS doesn't pass, the best thing we'll see is a few of the proposals stuck into bond issues here and there, and that eventually some of them will get done. But, I also see it ruining the whole MAPS concept. Why should any of the city leaders have any faith that a "new" MAPS would suddenly have the cachet that the original 3 did if this one fails? I don't think they will. I think we'll be stuck hoping our businessmen, the people many of the "no" voters seem to distrust the most, will do everything for us. We might get lucky, but I don't see any of them building a streetcar or a park, or putting in bike trails. Just my opinion.

[okrednk]

Don't worry...Not many "working families" will lose any sleep over white water rapids, or bike trails, or a convention center..or the "CENTRAL" park. They'd like to go to a park perhaps, but they don't want to drive 15-20 minutes to get to a decent one.

Come back when MAPS3 is about improving the quality of life around the entire city! Not just in downtown. And don't waste your time coming back with the whining about "annexation". No one rational is saying we need a park at Cimmaron Road or Harrah-Newalla...get real..

Am I mistaken or are the bike paths and Senior Acquatics apart of the entire city and not just downtown? The Maps 3 is geared toward growing downtown up and making it enjoyable plus profitable to the city. Future Maps projects will go to various locations in the city.

[jbrown84]

You and JBrown84. I'm confused by the individual points each of you is making with the back and forth between the two of you when referencing quotes (such as was made by Larry Thompson) and/or me or comments relating thereto.

Larry vaguely referred to "some posters" saying that if MAPS 3 fails, the city will be set back ten years. No one said that except David Thompson. Many expressed that momentum would slow or stop, but no one here tried to say that progress would be reversed.

Your college educated friends are desperately needing a park, walking trails and Senior Aquatic center huh?

It's clear from this statement that you just. don't. get. it.

It's not just about the specific projects but the development and improvements that only happen with the investment that is MAPS. Without the original MAPS, we would not have the NBA. We would not have an upscale bowling lounge in Bricktown. We would not have a new OKC Museum of Art facility that brings us art from the Louvre and the British Museum. We would not have an official Olympic training venue. We would not have a vegan culinary school. We would not have an 850' skyscraper under construction. We would not have multiple options for downtown living. Thousands of people at Chesapeake and Devon and Sandridge would not have jobs.

Why has this one been decided to be downtown? There are a lot of populated areas of the city that could use it. That alone isn't enough reason.

OKC already has 4 large parks, one in each quadrant of the city. The central part of the city does not have one. I would have been in favor of upgrades to those four parks as well as part of MAPS, but the fact that that was left out doesn't keep me from supporting the central park and MAPS 3 as a whole. There's no reason to think that adding this park will hurt the others. It will probably have a foundation dedicated to its upkeep, much like the Myriad Gardens.

If you ripped out the canal, demolished the Bricktown Ballpark and the Ford Center, paved over the Myriad Gardens, turned the OKC Zoo into a junkyard, and burned Remington Park to the ground, do you think people would think this city is still as nice a place to be? Would you say, "oh, unless you drive a canal boat, play professional basketball or baseball, or are a zookeeper or jockey, you aren't affected by any of this"?

This was my favorite... That's funny Pulse as you RIDE WORKING FAMILIES TO THE BANK!!!! Who's getting exploited! Struggling families are WHO paid for your precious MAPS1 and MAPS2 and MAPS2.1 or whatever.... You might want to remember that...

Aren't you late to a tea party protest somewhere?

[Chance23]

OKC already has 4 large parks, one in each quadrant of the city. The central part of the city does not have one. I would have been in favor of upgrades to those four parks as well as part of MAPS, but the fact that that was left out doesn't keep me from supporting the central park and MAPS 3 as a whole. There's no reason to think that adding this park will hurt the others. It will probably have a foundation dedicated to its upkeep, much like the Myriad Gardens.

What you can see in the parks website is that there are large portions of the city that have none, particularly in the southwest and southeast, while the core of the city has a high concentration of parks, which tapers out more as you leave the core and get into the more heavily resided parts of the city, then fades out completely as you get to the outskirts. From what I see, the downtown core is fairly well represented by parks, according to the city. I'm just not seeing the huge lack there.

And I never argued that adding this will hurt the others, but progress on a lot of the others have been stalled, and you can bet this one wouldn't be. How's a citizen who lives near those parks and doesn't necessarily want to have to drive downtown for one to take it?

But, I also see it ruining the whole MAPS concept. Why should any of the city leaders have any faith that a "new" MAPS would suddenly have the cachet that the original 3 did if this one fails? I don't think they will. I think we'll be stuck hoping our businessmen, the people many of the "no" voters seem to distrust the most, will do everything for us. We might get lucky, but I don't see any of them building a streetcar or a park, or putting in bike trails. Just my opinion.

Then what the blue hell kind of leaders would they be to begin with? What good is any of it? You think, unless we give total and complete obedience to city leaders that we should expect them to do nothing of value? When has there ever been a successful anything built up solely and entirely on success, where one failure has derailed the entire thing? If they can't build on failures, they have no business being a leader or proposing this to begin with. If their willpower and psyches are so fragile that they couldn't take 51 percent saying no without disappearing to cry in a corner for years, then this city hasn't done anything and these people should be out of office immediately. If that's the kind of person who would be in power, we're in far more peril from that than anything that could happen MAPS related.

And did you ever find the source so you can say there'd be a rebate for low-income families? That'd be a rather big deal and swaying point if it is true and you didn't make it up, but the more you evade the question the more it looks like you're lying to try to convince people of your stance.

[Larry OKC]

And, if one does a little research, this is precisely what happens. Mass transit in a downtown does promote development. Thanks for the interesting example, Kerry.

Yes, thanks Kerry

I saw his post from a completely different viewpoint:

...We recently saw a program on the Travel Channel called Man vs. Food and my youngest son wanted to eat at a place featured on the show called Rendezvous, which is located in downtown Memphis.

Our first choice was to stay in the suburbs where the hotels are cheaper, but not knowing which parts of Memphis were nice and which were not we decided to pay a little extra and stay downtown. ...

Sounded to me like it was akin to what I was saying. They were going to stay in the burbs, but because of an attraction (which happened to be located downtown) they chose to stay there instead. If the attraction had been located elsewhere, they would have stayed there instead. Downtown really didn't figure into the equation (and was potentially working against it because of the added expense).

On the positive side, he was impressed with what he saw and will be back.

By the way, how was the food? Will you be back because of it, or what you saw downtown? In other words if the food was bad, would you return?

[betts]

And I never argued that adding this will hurt the others, but progress on a lot of the others have been stalled, and you can bet this one wouldn't be. How's a citizen who lives near those parks and doesn't necessarily want to have to drive downtown for one to take it? .

That citizen is clearly going to vote "no". And then, do what we all do if we want change: work for it his or herself, vote for someone who supports his or her position, etc. His or her other option is to sit around and complain about it, which is always a popular choice. You're saying city leaders should show leadership. If, as citizens, we want something, then we've got to do something other than passively sit back and wait for it as well. Everyone in political power made a personal choice to be there, for reasons good or ill, and every one of them was once a private citizen. As private citizens, we can choose to attempt to be leaders if we want change as well, rather than passively assuming it will be done for us and becoming angry when it's not done the way we want it, or we don't like who our leaders are. Since we are part of a democracy, and living in one requires compromise, if the majority wills other than what we want, we've got to accept that will and work for change.

Then what the blue hell kind of leaders would they be to begin with? What good is any of it? You think, unless we give total and complete obedience to city leaders that we should expect them to do nothing of value? When has there ever been a successful anything built up solely and entirely on success, where one failure has derailed the entire thing? If they can't build on failures, they have no business being a leader or proposing this to begin with. If their willpower and psyches are so fragile that they couldn't take 51 percent saying no without disappearing to cry in a corner for years, then this city hasn't done anything and these people should be out of office immediately. If that's the kind of person who would be in power, we're in far more peril from that than anything that could happen MAPS related. .

Are you expecting perfection from our leaders? If so, I think I see the reason behind your obvious anger. Regardless, I'm voting yes because I want MAPS to succeed, not because I'm worried about what will happen if it won't. It has nothing to do with obedience. I went to the MAPS meetings, I filled out the questionnaire, I've written the mayor and city councilmen, I've done what I can to influence what has been chosen, recognizing that they were never going to pick everything I wanted, as government is always a compromise. I don't want to wait 5 years, hoping that the next proposal will be better, or have absolutely everything I want in it, because that's not realistic, IMO. I'm willing to accept the fact that this proposal isn't perfect, but that it has things that I'd like to see implemented, things that I think would be good for the city. But, if you cannot understand how momentum behind a concept can stop or stall if it hits a major stumbling block, then I think you're not being realistic.

And did you ever find the source so you can say there'd be a rebate for low-income families? That'd be a rather big deal and swaying point if it is true and you didn't make it up, but the more you evade the question the more it looks like you're lying to try to convince people of your stance.

Working on it. I found it for the last MAPS campaign, and it's buried in a thread here somewhere, but I don't have time to go through a thousand replies on multiple threads to try and find it. I'm waiting for an answer from someone in city government. I don't make things up. Sometimes I misunderstand, or I do math badly and misinterpret, but I don't lie.

[iron76hd]

It's clear from this statement that you just. don't. get. it.

It's not just about the specific projects but the development and improvements that only happen with the investment that is MAPS. Without the original MAPS, we would not have the NBA. We would not have an upscale bowling lounge in Bricktown. We would not have a new OKC Museum of Art facility that brings us art from the Louvre and the British Museum. We would not have an official Olympic training venue. We would not have a vegan culinary school. We would not have an 850' skyscraper under construction. We would not have multiple options for downtown living. Thousands of people at Chesapeake and Devon and Sandridge would not have jobs.

You don't get it. No one suggested that the other MAPS projects weren't good for Oklahoma City. What you're suggesting is that this MAPS will spur the exact kind of growth which is ridiculous.

Aren't you late to a tea party protest somewhere?

Yes. I'm sure I am.

Larry vaguely referred to "some posters" saying that if MAPS 3 fails, the city will be set back ten years. No one said that except David Thompson. Many expressed that momentum would slow or stop, but no one here tried to say that progress would be reversed.

Oh...I see now it's just a play on words. That's exactly what Hump said on "Flashpoint". We'd totally lose momentum. It'd be ten to 20 years until we got something else going. All of the businesses that are making a nice home here would pack up and leave i guess. right?

[betts]

I have an update from my query to our city government. The previous MAPS project did have the tax rebate. This one does not, so I was mistaken. I thought it would carry over, since it's the same concept, but I apologize for being misleading.

That being said, I think it should, and I think we should press our city council to create a rebate for lower income citizens. I am happy, as a taxpayer, to carry a little of the "burden" (although in this case I do not consider it a burden) for our lower income citizens. If that means we have fewer funds to carry out the projects planned, so be it.

[iron76hd]

Are you expecting perfection from our leaders? If so, I think I see the reason behind your obvious anger.

Geez..No. I want "honesty". I want "transparency". Neither is what we've gotten from our current leaders, except. Brian Walters. He's been in the little secret meetings. He see's the conflicts of some of those involved. He see's the problems with the current Public Services that haven't been addressed. He see's the budget numbers from the City Manager etc..

He know this wasn't as "good" as it could have been and we have alot of other issues we need to address right now. Others aren't stupid, but are cowards and can't speak up. Just "go along" with the program is what they are doing.

[OSUFan]

I've never understood this line of thinking. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that, if this ballot fails, the city leaders would throw up their hands and surrender? I think they've shown a commitment to trying to develop the city, so I don't see why would suddenly give up if it failed, especially since most of these people are politicians and businessmen, fields where failure is always present and just a step toward further success.

And if that is the case, isn't that just a bad spot to be in in general, if leaders aren't willing to amend their measures to try to get more approval?

I guess I really don't understand your line of thinking. Why would they come back with another plan? In your opinion, they can come up with a better plan. Whether you agree with the city or not. I think we can say this is the best plan, in their opinion.

It takes a lot of money to put these things to vote. Will the city put fourth the money to hold another election? Who is going to run the campaign and raise the money to do so? These things are run by donations. Can you really go to the donors again? Will they run another campaign just to have the unions come out against it again?

Add to the fact that the current tax will expire so another campaign would defintely be viewed by the public as a tax increase, making it that much more difficult.

I just don't see why they would come back with another MAPS. Now I don't think that means the city and its leaders will quit making this city a better place but I don't see them coming back with another initiative anywhere close to the size and scope of what we are used to in MAPS anytime soon.

[tehvipir]

have you looked at everything the maps 3 offers? I mean trails, aquatics center, park, light rail, convention center. Sounds like it includes something for everyone right? well then why cant they put it on the ballot. I feel that the reason that they dont put it on the ballot is just that, it includes everyone so all different walks of life will have something they THINK they will get if it passes but individually it is left out of the ballot so that there is no Legal binding to what does or doesn't get built so when the item you were hoping for doesn't get built you cant get bent out of shape because you voted to give the ity the money with no promise of anything. that alone should sound funny.

I would love bike trails connecting all the trails we have dont get me wrong but i am willing to put what i WANT aside for what WE NEED. They estimated and got money for Fire station #6 which was to be put in bricktown in 200 yet because everything has gotten more expensive the amount of money is no longer enough. why wont this happen to maps3 why do we think that we have a good number to build all these things in 7 years without running out of money yet we cant build a fire station that was fully funded in 1 year.

Just saying it is too vague.

I do believe that the Ford center is approx 12 million short on fixing it up the the NBA requirements. where is that extra money coming from. oh i bet maps 3. so if we take 12 million from maps 3 what project is going to to get cut.

[jbrown84]

tapers out more as you leave the core and get into the more heavily resided parts of the city, then fades out completely as you get to the outskirts.

You act as if no one lives inside the inner loop. The suburban areas of OKC have much bigger homes on much bigger lots. I guarantee you these areas are NOT "more heavily resided" than the inner city.

How's a citizen who lives near those parks and doesn't necessarily want to have to drive downtown for one to take it?

This idea that you don't have a park closer than downtown is ridiculous. That's impossible.

You don't get it. No one suggested that the other MAPS projects weren't good for Oklahoma City. What you're suggesting is that this MAPS will spur the exact kind of growth which is ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous?

Oh...I see now it's just a play on words.

Like a pun?? No...

[Chance23]

As private citizens, we can choose to attempt to be leaders if we want change as well, rather than passively assuming it will be done for us and becoming angry when it's not done the way we want it, or we don't like who our leaders are.

Or, if they dont' have the deep pockets that politicians tend to have, they can vote against any measure they want. Not everyone has the ability and resources to run for office, despite what they told us in our middle school civics lessons.

Are you expecting perfection from our leaders?

Nope, I want honest, reasonable discussion, the type that actually informs people as opposed to spouts off the motto and buzzwords over and over. I believe in questioning those in power, whether I voted for them or not (and even if they aren't voted into power, just ask Iron). I want to be able to ask questions and actually have people try to answer them, as opposed to people calling it "opinion" when it's not and ignoring it. As a citizen in a democracy, that's something we're entitled to. If you can't accept that some people simply want honesty behind it rather than partisan bullet points, you're the one whose not being realistic. There is no anger behind it at all, there's a desire for real discussion as opposed to cheerleading. And I don't think anything bad has ever come from true, honest discussion.

No one ever said anything about perfection. People have said things about such dastardly concepts as "accountability" but no one said anything about expecting perfection.

I have an update from my query to our city government. The previous MAPS project did have the tax rebate. This one does not, so I was mistaken. I thought it would carry over, since it's the same concept, but I apologize for being misleading.

Thank you for looking. I found it odd that something like that wouldn't have been mentioned in any place I had read, as it should be a rather big selling point.

I guess I really don't understand your line of thinking. Why would they come back with another plan? In your opinion, they can come up with a better plan. Whether you agree with the city or not. I think we can say this is the best plan, in their opinion.

Why? Well, I assume a few things.

One: that these are mostly successful individuals in their private lives and businesses.

Two: that they are competent.

Now, among those groups I cannot think of a single individual who has ever had to operate without any sort of failure, who has never had to compromise, or who has ever had to try a second time to complete something. The Buffets', the Gates', the Jobs', the Rockerfellers', well, you get the picture. Anyone who has ever been successful for a long stretch of time. Politicians fail to get things done all the time. They fail for a variety of reasons. Most of the time, they keep at it, they look at what happened, figure out how to fix it, and try again. If they don't, they don't tend to stay in office very long. I can't think of a single individual who has been successful in life without ever having failed and had to try again.

And, finally, I never argued any actual point, I merely asked questions, something pro-MAPS people seem to have a problem dealing with.

It takes a lot of money to put these things to vote. Will the city put fourth the money to hold another election? Who is going to run the campaign and raise the money to do so? These things are run by donations. Can you really go to the donors again? Will they run another campaign just to have the unions come out against it again?

Yes on all points. Donors will donate to what they feel strongly about, politicians will try again on a topic they feel strongly about, and failing to win hasn't tended to stop someone who feels strongly about trying to run again. What's to make this different?

Add to the fact that the current tax will expire so another campaign would defintely be viewed by the public as a tax increase, making it that much more difficult.

I don't think many people buy into that argument to begin with. I think most voting people are smart enough to see through the mostly transparent smokescreen on that point. They know there's no practical difference.

I just don't see why they would come back with another MAPS. Now I don't think that means the city and its leaders will quit making this city a better place but I don't see them coming back with another initiative anywhere close to the size and scope of what we are used to in MAPS anytime soon.

If it fails, they should look at why. If it's the size and scope, that should be adjusted. That's what successful people do in life. If they can't amend their stance they shouldn't be in politics.

You act as if no one lives inside the inner loop. The suburban areas of OKC have much bigger homes on much bigger lots. I guarantee you these areas are NOT "more heavily resided" than the inner city.

No, I act like the majority of the population of the city lives outside the core area. If you have population figures to show the contrary, feel free. I'd be glad to amend my stance.

This idea that you don't have a park closer than downtown is ridiculous. That's impossible.

The city parks website shows exactly where the majority of the parks are located, so you've not exactly said anything that I can't look there to see is incorrect. I see the majority of the parks toward the central part of the city, and many areas in the outskirts with no parks. None of that is addressed in MAPS and all these things could definitely be MAPS projects if they so wanted.

You act as if there's nothing downtown but concrete, despite the city itself showing a large number of parks there.

[andy157]

I have an update from my query to our city government. The previous MAPS project did have the tax rebate. This one does not, so I was mistaken. I thought it would carry over, since it's the same concept, but I apologize for being misleading.

That being said, I think it should, and I think we should press our city council to create a rebate for lower income citizens. I am happy, as a taxpayer, to carry a little of the "burden" (although in this case I do not consider it a burden) for our lower income citizens. If that means we have fewer funds to carry out the projects planned, so be it.

Their getting a swimming pool in lieu of a tax rebate. They can't have both.

[jbrown84]

No, I act like the majority of the population of the city lives outside the core area. If you have population figures to show the contrary, feel free. I'd be glad to amend my stance.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (OK) Zip Code Map - Locations, Demographics - list of zip codes

OKC Population Density by Zip: (Average: 909)

1. 73102 (Downtown) 5223
2. 73119 (Inner City) 5190
3. 73106 (Inner City) 4801
4. 73112 (Inner City/Suburban) 4287
5. 73139 (Inner City/Suburban) 4117
6. 73162 (Suburban) 3944
7. 73109 (Inner City) 3902
8. 73132 (Suburban) 3615
9. 73159 (Suburban) 3615
10. 73103 (Inner City) 3558
11. 73107 (Inner City) 3334
12. 73118 (Inner City) 3298
13. 73120 (Suburban) 3215
14. 73116 (Suburban) 2382
15. 73108 (Inner City) 2280
16. 73127 (Suburban/Rural) 2170
17. 73130 (Suburban) 2049
18. 73149 (Inner City) 1765
19. 73114 (Suburban) 1747
20. 73111 (Inner City/Rural) 1605
21. 73135 (Suburban) 1553
22. 73129 (Inner City) 1507
23. 73104 (Bricktown/Health Center) 1343
24. 73117 (Inner City) 1197
25. 73105 (Inner City) 1177
26. 73170 (Suburban/Rural) 1155
27. 73134 (Suburban) 711
28. 73142 (Suburban) 686
29. 73121 (Rural/Suburban) 322
30. 73141 (Rural) 282
31. 73128 (Rural) 279
32. 73150 (Rural) 273
33. 73179 (Rural) 263
34. 73151 (Rural) 253
35. 73169 (Rural) 252
36. 73131 (Suburban/Rural) 191
37. 73165 (Rural) 118
38. 73173 (Rural) 36

[Chance23]

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (OK) Zip Code Map - Locations, Demographics - list of zip codes

OKC Population Density by Zip: (Average: 909)

1. 73102 (Downtown) 5223
2. 73119 (Inner City) 5190
3. 73106 (Inner City) 4801
4. 73112 (Inner City/Suburban) 4287
5. 73139 (Inner City/Suburban) 4117
6. 73162 (Suburban) 3944
7. 73109 (Inner City) 3902
8. 73132 (Suburban) 3615
9. 73159 (Suburban) 3615
10. 73103 (Inner City) 3558
11. 73107 (Inner City) 3334
12. 73118 (Inner City) 3298
13. 73120 (Suburban) 3215
14. 73116 (Suburban) 2382
15. 73108 (Inner City) 2280
16. 73127 (Suburban/Rural) 2170
17. 73130 (Suburban) 2049
18. 73149 (Inner City) 1765
19. 73114 (Suburban) 1747
20. 73111 (Inner City/Rural) 1605
21. 73135 (Suburban) 1553
22. 73129 (Inner City) 1507
23. 73104 (Bricktown/Health Center) 1343
24. 73117 (Inner City) 1197
25. 73105 (Inner City) 1177
26. 73170 (Suburban/Rural) 1155
27. 73134 (Suburban) 711
28. 73142 (Suburban) 686
29. 73121 (Rural/Suburban) 322
30. 73141 (Rural) 282
31. 73128 (Rural) 279
32. 73150 (Rural) 273
33. 73179 (Rural) 263
34. 73151 (Rural) 253
35. 73169 (Rural) 252
36. 73131 (Suburban/Rural) 191
37. 73165 (Rural) 118
38. 73173 (Rural) 36

That's actually population density, rather than population figures. Add those up and you don't get the total pop for Oklahoma. City Nevertheless, they do seem to state that things are contrary to what I believed at the time, and it's actual data, so I thank you very much for providing it.

[jbrown84]

I know it's population density. That's what you have to look at. There may be a lot of little parks in the downtown and inner core areas, but that's because more people are crammed in to that space.

Naturally, if you choose to live in a more rural area of the city, parks are going to be further apart. Even areas with big subdivisions are much less dense.

[SouthsideSooner]

What you can see in the parks website is that there are large portions of the city that have none, particularly in the southwest and southeast, while the core of the city has a high concentration of parks, which tapers out more as you leave the core and get into the more heavily resided parts of the city, then fades out completely as you get to the outskirts. From what I see, the downtown core is fairly well represented by parks, according to the city. I'm just not seeing the huge lack there.

Southwest? The city recently built the 158-acre South Lakes Regional Park, 4210 SW 119, Oklahoma City's first new regional park in twenty years. It opened August 31, 2004...