Widgets Magazine
Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 666

Thread: Maps 3

  1. #226

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3. Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen? Maybe I just missed that part.

    Oh, and there are always agendas. Many of them good, some bad. The biggest and best agenda is serving our citizens. How that is done best is a matter of opinion.
    Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowman View Post
    Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.
    By who? Where was it said? In what context?

  3. Default Re: Maps 3

    rover, Im not sure if you're playing devils advocate or are the big interests 'boy' sometimes. I often agree with some points of what you say (usually about conspiracies) but Unforsaken brought up some very valid points and I also noticed that your posts always have a common theme - that these power brokers (Nickles, Bennett, etc all) know what they're doing - they run big businesses and that the citizens don't know the real deal or should otherwise trust what has happened.

    Yet, how can people trust when things have consistently changed and it has been ONE group leading that change. You asked about the original MAPS III timeline, you would HAVE to believe there was one since MULTIPLE PEOPLE on here have consistently cited it and are asking why should we change it so the ford site becomes favourable for the convention centre. Rover, this is a fact and nobody is dreaming it and YOU are the one in the dark or being the cc's boy.

    Second, it is very clear that transit was the #1 by far project the citizens voted on, yet you (and the cc people) have tried to push that aside and say it is the CC that is the centrepiece of MAPS III. Many of us beg to differ and would like the system that was set up to be used (and not changed so that Ford Site 'works').

    Again, I am not picking on you or anything and most of the time I agree with at least some of your points, but when I look objectively at your posts and some of the things others are saying - I can't help but think that you are defending the cc people and trying to justify their actions with their business titles. As someone on the forum said, Larry should stick to running oil/gas companies because bullying your way through civic projects is NOT the way to go. As I said in the cc thread, it is plainly obvious that the cc committee didn't even use their own criteria in selecting the cc site, since Ford site was the LOWEST scored and needed significant modifications to MAPS III in order for it to even come close to being acceptable along the lines of the other sites.

    So this has to make somebody wonder - why did the cc committee not follow their own rules/process, and instead chose an all around (per their own survey) inferiour site? Why is it that transit, the #1 by far project this city wants, has to be pushed back 2 years so that the Ford Site Convention Center WORKS and Clay Bennett supported Fairgrounds get pushed up 1 year?

    Again, there was an original timeline, otherwise - why are people *me, forum members, these committees, the council* why are we all saying this should move 30 months, this back 2 years, so on. Come on, ... There was an original schedule and you are proving more and more that you are just supporting the cc and that perhaps there MAY BE some sort of conspiracy by Bennett, Nichols, and the cc committee members. ....
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  4. #229

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    By who? Where was it said? In what context?
    Cornett said it. However, I'm not sure that was prior to the vote. I believe it may have been fairly soon after MAPS 3 passed. I don't recall hearing anything about a timeline prior to the vote.

    The best argument for the first timeline is that it was ADG's opinion, theoretically idependent of outside influence. The timeline was not changed until a change was requested by one committee. It doesn't bother me that the convention center committee wanted to move up. I understand that completely. It was that they wanted to move to the front of the line, and they basically leaned on ADG to change their timeline, without any discussion of quality of life issues, without any discussion of how that timeline would affect other projects. It was basically....."This is what we want." and it was quite clear in the meeting they intended to get it. ADG didn't help, because they threw out that the three projects with the most economic impact would be the convention center, the fairgrounds and the whitewater facility. There was absolutely no data presented to back up this assertion, and when asked after the meeting why the economic impact of the streetcar hadn't been factored in to the discussion, it was stated that that economic benefit had been discussed at the joint meeting and that "information had been adequately discussed." ???????? Then, ADG changed the timeline to move up the convention center, the fairgrounds and the whitewater facility. I've yet to see any hard data about the potential economic impact of any of them.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maps 3

    I am certainly not in the business to support the "big boys", are not their friend, and have no financial interest in them, at all. Nor do I think they are infallible, far from it. I also do not believe that they are experts on urban development. HOWEVER, when there are differences of opinion, all too often certain people on this board are way too eager to look for a boogey man. There seems to be a theme of resentment of successful people in general. The conversation gets pretty aggressive in its portrayal of many civic leaders and their motives or "agendas". I happen to think that we should question their decisions, but unless we have pretty good evidence, we should avoid assigning motives. In fact, very few on here know their motives or why they think like they think. I believe that many of the people who are attacked hardest (Like Larry Nichols) actually have huge amounts of skin in the game and want downtown OKC to be the best it can be. That he may have a different opinion of what that is and is working to convince others of his point of view does not automatically make him a crook as some have intimated without evidence.

    I will always vigorously defend the right and value of good honest discourse, but feel like the personal attacks, regardless of the target, is unnecessary and do not help us find good and solid common understanding and new ideas.

    I think there is solid reasoning behind the Ford site, as there is for other sites as well. In the end, there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made. Consensus is not easy. Whether it is priority of projects or how they are done, if there are multiple choices there will be multiple viewpoints and many enemies of decisions which will be made. But it doesn't mean the people making the decisions are bad, or stupid, or ill intentioned. And if we don't like how it is done, then we need to vote the people responsible out. But we put people in office to make decisions and they are making them. Elect new people if you want new decisions.

    As for the "power brokers", the reason they keep popping up is that our leaders always ask them to be on these committees and to lead initiatives. It is because they have proven over and over that they can actually get things done at a high level. That, and their contacts with other people who can get things done is huge. Nobody asks failures and novices to lead initiatives to spend millions of dollars, particularly public money. It is no secret why the same people are involved. USUALLY, but not always, there is a reason why they have been successful and it isn't because they are shrinking violets. Oh, and most of them really know their way around financial information, project planning, working with consultants, knowing who to believe and who not to believe, and have large staffs capable of helping them get to the bottom of most issues. They usually know how to navigate trick politics and how to work with groups to gain common ground. They generally are also good at knowing good risks from bad on many types of issues.

    That said, I totally agree that this is a citizens' initiative and we all need to voice our opinions and be heard in the process, and to be vocal when we are not.

  6. #231

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    I am certainly not in the business to support the "big boys", are not their friend, and have no financial interest in them, at all. Nor do I think they are infallible, far from it. I also do not believe that they are experts on urban development. HOWEVER, when there are differences of opinion, all too often certain people on this board are way too eager to look for a boogey man. There seems to be a theme of resentment of successful people in general. The conversation gets pretty aggressive in its portrayal of many civic leaders and their motives or "agendas". I happen to think that we should question their decisions, but unless we have pretty good evidence, we should avoid assigning motives. In fact, very few on here know their motives or why they think like they think. I believe that many of the people who are attacked hardest (Like Larry Nichols) actually have huge amounts of skin in the game and want downtown OKC to be the best it can be. That he may have a different opinion of what that is and is working to convince others of his point of view does not automatically make him a crook as some have intimated without evidence.

    I will always vigorously defend the right and value of good honest discourse, but feel like the personal attacks, regardless of the target, is unnecessary and do not help us find good and solid common understanding and new ideas.

    I think there is solid reasoning behind the Ford site, as there is for other sites as well. In the end, there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made. Consensus is not easy. Whether it is priority of projects or how they are done, if there are multiple choices there will be multiple viewpoints and many enemies of decisions which will be made. But it doesn't mean the people making the decisions are bad, or stupid, or ill intentioned. And if we don't like how it is done, then we need to vote the people responsible out. But we put people in office to make decisions and they are making them. Elect new people if you want new decisions.

    As for the "power brokers", the reason they keep popping up is that our leaders always ask them to be on these committees and to lead initiatives. It is because they have proven over and over that they can actually get things done at a high level. That, and their contacts with other people who can get things done is huge. Nobody asks failures and novices to lead initiatives to spend millions of dollars, particularly public money. It is no secret why the same people are involved. USUALLY, but not always, there is a reason why they have been successful and it isn't because they are shrinking violets. Oh, and most of them really know their way around financial information, project planning, working with consultants, knowing who to believe and who not to believe, and have large staffs capable of helping them get to the bottom of most issues. They usually know how to navigate trick politics and how to work with groups to gain common ground. They generally are also good at knowing good risks from bad on many types of issues.

    That said, I totally agree that this is a citizens' initiative and we all need to voice our opinions and be heard in the process, and to be vocal when we are not.
    I really appreciate your comment. Thanks.

  7. #232

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3. Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen? Maybe I just missed that part. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowman View Post
    Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    By who? Where was it said? In what context?
    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    Cornett said it. However, I'm not sure that was prior to the vote. I believe it may have been fairly soon after MAPS 3 passed. I don't recall hearing anything about a timeline prior to the vote. ...
    Betts is correct, it was the Mayor (pre-vote).
    From the Mayor's January 2009 State of the City speech:
    The park and the boulevard are the lynchpins, and they serve as the catalyst for future retail, housing, and a potential Convention Center, which I’ll discuss in a moment. ... The timeline is doable. Keep in mind, the interstate should be relocated in 2012. The resulting boulevard that will be built along the current interstate alignment should be in place by 2014. The park, ideally, needs to be ready at the same time, roughly five years from now.

    If we decided to vote on a MAPS 3 initiative in the next year or two, it would most likely be at least ten years from now before that convention center would open.
    Q&A with Cornet (Oklahoman, 3/11/2009):
    It’s important to remember that a new convention center may not open until nearly 2020, even if funding were approved this year.
    MAPS convention center plans discussed (Oklahoman, 11/22/09)
    Cornett said the city hasn’t decided which projects will be built first and will make those decisions with the help of a citizen’s oversight committee. But he expects the park will be toward the front of the line.

    "The convention center will probably be 10 years out, maybe nine,” Cornett said.
    Somewhere Cornett used the phrase "staged last" when talking about his preference for the timing of the C.C., but can't locate it right now...


    All of that being said, the underlying premise/rationale of the Park/Boulevard was a direct response to the relocation of I-40 and the opportunity that presented the City to redevelop/redesign it's downtown. The Council has declared the Core to Shore area as being "blighted" and the intention of getting the Park completed as one of the 1st projects is giving the people that are exiting off those new I-40 ramps into downtown, won't be driving through block after block of unsightly "blight" (the same rational used for the Boulevard or "Gateway" into downtown). If the park is pushed back towards the end of the timeline, that means people are going to be looking at various degrees of that blight for the next 10 years. Do we really want that?

    I agree with the Mayor, that the Park needs to be completed (blight removed and construction finished) sooner rather than later.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maps 3

    So park before transit? Park before senior centers?

  9. #234

    Default Re: Maps 3

    By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.

  10. #235

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
    By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.
    Since I fit in that category, I'm planning on proving you wrong. LOL

  11. #236

    Default Re: Maps 3

    ljbab728:

    I hear what you are saying. While I don't currently qualify, by the time they get built, I will (if they follow the age criteria of the Arkansas one they were using as the template pre-vote).

  12. #237
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
    By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.
    That's the way it goes when you pay as you go (or before you go). On the other hand, we of this generation get the advantage of those who paid before us. This is our responsibility to succeeding generations. We should be doing these things for the "future" of OKC and our kid and grandkids. This is not about being just self serving and selfish, but in preparing OKC for the long haul. Too often we look at supporting these things based only on what WE want RIGHT NOW an only for our own use. If we are to be a great city and a great citizenry we must give up our selfish interests and be willing to look more at the future.

  13. #238

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
    By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.
    While their will be a some that will not get a chance to use them, it is not like it is a targeted tax on seniors, the vast majority of people who pay for them (even if you just include senior population today) will get an option to use one unless they end up having to be closed.

  14. #239

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    That's the way it goes when you pay as you go (or before you go). On the other hand, we of this generation get the advantage of those who paid before us. This is our responsibility to succeeding generations. We should be doing these things for the "future" of OKC and our kid and grandkids. This is not about being just self serving and selfish, but in preparing OKC for the long haul. Too often we look at supporting these things based only on what WE want RIGHT NOW an only for our own use. If we are to be a great city and a great citizenry we must give up our selfish interests and be willing to look more at the future.
    I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, but you do realize that including the Senior Aquatic Centers was a deliberate, calculated political decision to get the Senior vote? Just as the Senior sales tax exemption was used in the original MAPS? MAPS 4 kids is a much better example of what you were talking about. On the other hand, I know of very few voters that vote for purely unselfish reasons. There is nearly always "something in it for them". Thus the wide range of projects. Not interested in a Convention Center? Fine, maybe you want Streetcars, Trails and Sidewalks.

  15. #240
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry OKC View Post
    I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, but you do realize that including the Senior Aquatic Centers was a deliberate, calculated political decision to get the Senior vote? Just as the Senior sales tax exemption was used in the original MAPS? MAPS 4 kids is a much better example of what you were talking about. On the other hand, I know of very few voters that vote for purely unselfish reasons. There is nearly always "something in it for them". Thus the wide range of projects. Not interested in a Convention Center? Fine, maybe you want Streetcars, Trails and Sidewalks.
    If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years. However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it. So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.

  16. #241

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years. However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it. So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.
    I have to say that, as a Senior, the plans for the Senior Centers really were not a major consideration in my decision to vote for approval.

  17. #242

    Default Re: Maps 3

    I just want to see the streetcar get built before I die and I'm in my 30s, lol

  18. #243

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years. However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it. So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.
    Agree, no time frame or specific location was given. But to your money point, if they had them shovel ready (they aren't). They have all of the money needed to build all of them now.

  19. #244
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    8,632
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maps 3

    What is the total budget for the Sr. Centers? Have sites been chosen & land acquired? Have designs been started?

  20. #245

    Default Re: Maps 3

    I can't remember the exact budget, but I believe each is anticipated to cost between $10 and $15 million. The city is looking for partners to help with the operation of the facilities once they're built, and that's actually one of the most important rate limiting steps. I know they've been talking to St. Anthony's and OUHSC but I'm not aware if there's been any formal partnership formed. There are no specific plans nor has land been chosen as far as I know. The city simply has collected enough money to start, but the timeline hasn't even been formally adopted so nothing will happen until then.

    Perhaps someone on the committee is a member here and will enlighten us.

  21. #246

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by ljbab728 View Post
    I have to say that, as a Senior, the plans for the Senior Centers really were not a major consideration in my decision to vote for approval.
    same here. . . .

  22. #247

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    What is the total budget for the Sr. Centers? Have sites been chosen & land acquired? Have designs been started?
    Betts is correct on the per center cost

    This was from a pre-vote sidebar article in the Oklahoman
    Health and wellness aquatic centers for senior citizens, $50 million
    An undetermined number of the centers would be built across the city. City officials have not said exactly where the centers will be located.
    As I said, the Senior Aquatics Centers are NOT shovel ready. They don't know what they are going to be like (what amenities). Don't know locations (other than a general statement about one being placed in each quadrant of the City). May or may not own the land already (depends on where they end up). Don't know the exact number either (during campaign, repeatedly put at 4 or 5). Just a guess but that would mean one in each quadrant (as previously mentioned) and maybe one located downtown. Am sure the number depends on the cost per center and if they stay within the overall $50MM earmarked amount.

    My point was addressing your point about having the money in hand to build them. IF they were shovel ready and all of those particulars were resolved, the City has the amount needed to build all of them already. There are at least a couple of vocal Council members making sure the SACs dont get the short end of the deal. IIRC White, Kelley and maybe a couple of others have expressed strong support for them.

    The City also has all of the $10MM earmarked for the Sidewalks (they don't appear to be exactly shovel ready at this point either). But I suspect they are closer to being so than the SACs

  23. #248

    Default Re: Maps 3

    So major discussion happening right now at the City Council meeting as to whether put the $30 million substation money in the Convention Center budget, add it to the contingency fund and deal with it later, or end the Maps 3 tax early shorting the overall budget $30 mil.

  24. #249

    Default Re: Maps 3

    Anyone know why the revenue and expenditure report wasn't presented at the last MAPS 3 committee meeting?

  25. #250

    Default Re: Maps 3

    It's too bad they can't use it to start a maintenance fund for the park, but out of those choices I'd go with contingency fund or end the tax early.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. MAPS Fundraising Reports
    By betts in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 08:55 PM
  2. Points to consider about MAPS 3
    By Chef in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 03:19 PM
  3. New info on MAPS 3
    By metro in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 533
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 10:56 AM
  4. MAPS 3 proposal almost ready...
    By warreng88 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 220
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 08:14 AM
  5. MAPS Impact continues
    By Patrick in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2005, 12:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO