Ideas 4 MAPS

[Goon]

the sports marketing part of the CVB seems to think having all the fields in one place ups the chances of OKC landing events

I know. its unfortunate. Taking transformative money (15-30 million) and dumping it all into one location is short-sighted, especially when the other parks I mention have excellent fields already.

[citywokchinesefood]

I know. its unfortunate. Taking transformative money (15-30 million) and dumping it all into one location is short-sighted, especially when the other parks I mention have excellent fields already.

They literally said they wanted to improve all of the existing parks too. Did you go to the meeting? Did you even watch it?

[Pete]

You can see all the presentations here:

https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-4

[Pete]

^

But there are no sexy projects.

And that is what has always carried MAPS in the past.

[Urban Pioneer]

^

But there are no sexy projects.

And that is what has always carried MAPS in the past.

The polling demonstrates the public is down for a “needs-based” agenda this time.

[Pete]

The polling demonstrates the public is down for a “needs-based” agenda this time.

It's not that simple.

Some of those areas -- in a very general way -- were viewed positively in the polling.

But the MAPS vote is for a slate of projects and in the past the big, shiny things carried those less popular. We are talking about something very different this time around.

[Urban Pioneer]

It's not that simple.

Some of those areas -- in a very general way -- were viewed positively in the polling.

But the MAPS vote is for a slate of projects and in the past the big, shiny things carried those less popular. We are talking about something very different this time around.

It is true that the streetcar and the MAPS 3 park did in fact poll positively and help tow the 2009 vote. Senior wellness centers also influenced the outcome. However, over the past ten years we have seen a significant shift in civic engagement around making investment outside of the core.

Many of the MAPS 3 projects were derided in official city council campaigns post vote. There was also the "MAPS for neighborhoods" initiative was completely gaseous in nature. There was no plan. There wasn't even a meaningful outline. However, that organic group of people helped solidify a narrative that has stuck.

Throw in many ham-fisted corporate PR snafus, conspiracy theories, and demolitions of beloved buildings, and you have seen all of these elements galvanize the organic "anything but shiny and downtown" narrative.

If you look at the aggregation of support around certain combinations of projects, MAPS 4 would easily pass if it were held in today's environment. It won't take big shiny projects this time. The public is far more engaged its formation and it is doubtful that there will be meaningful opposition.

[gopokes88]

Also, on previous maps there were clear choices for big sexy projects.

New ballpark in Bricktown
The peake
The canal
Riversports
CC
A park

Etc etc

There isn’t a clear cut big sexy project to try and tackle. Maybe soccer? Feels just a touch too early.

State fair has political issues, people are mad at them for tearing everything cool down, in favor of making it look like an industrial warehouse district.

Except my crystal lagoon idea, that would have been awesome.

[OKC Guy]

It's not that simple.

Some of those areas -- in a very general way -- were viewed positively in the polling.

But the MAPS vote is for a slate of projects and in the past the big, shiny things carried those less popular. We are talking about something very different this time around.

We don’t need as much as we did with first 3. My stance is lower these into 2 year or so MAPS. Even if one fails the next one will be ready to roll out the next year. Can faster adjust to changing needs and voters will see results of each one faster which will keep them more engaged in next one. Its been 10 years and lots has changed since then. Smaller package engages those behind it and maybe no voters are not as outraged since its only 2 years and $200M vice 10 years and $1B.

[hoya]

We don’t need as much as we did with first 3. My stance is lower these into 2 year or so MAPS. Even if one fails the next one will be ready to roll out the next year. Can faster adjust to changing needs and voters will see results of each one faster which will keep them more engaged in next one. Its been 10 years and lots has changed since then. Smaller package engages those behind it and maybe no voters are not as outraged since its only 2 years and $200M vice 10 years and $1B.

I think we still need a ton of stuff, but there aren't as many easy, obvious choices. There are a lot of groups in the city who have their hands out (I'm looking at you, fairgrounds and soccer team) that would turn the public off immediately. I could get behind a 3 year MAPS program to do some smaller projects, and then do it again a few years later. Like if MAPS 4 was the Domestic Violence Center, the Animal Shelter, a Mental Health Center, and $50 million for sidewalks and trails, all paid for in 3 years, I would vote for that. They could give people a bit of a breather, let the convention center come online, and reassess in a few years.

Now, I think there's going to need to be a major MAPS initiative to handle transportation that works hand in hand with the Regional Transit Authority. But that's a big, big project and I don't think they're ready to move on it yet. Having maybe two smaller MAPS in between would give them time to get all their ducks in a row.

[hoya]

^

But there are no sexy projects.

And that is what has always carried MAPS in the past.

I don't know about that. From what I recall, trails and sidewalks always score really high. So did the regional old people fitness centers. They were always a small part of the budget, but they polled well. A lot of the big sexy projects would poll at like 53% support or something like that.

Except for MAPS for Kids, we've always had a big sexy project, and it was marketed to promote those, but I don't know that we'd have a problem without them. A MAPS that focused entirely on community needs (mental health, domestic violence center, sidewalks, etc) might be wildly popular.

[Laramie]

MAPS initiatives have done much for the positive profile, quality of life & image of our city. Support a variety of items that will continue enhancements.

Our Riversports Rapids was a result of a similar Charlotte project (U.S. National Whitewater Center); the Bricktown Canal from San Antonio's Riverwalk.

We do need more 'protected' bike lanes & trials; address domestic violence & mental health. More sidewalks because developers don't include them.

Let your voice be heard at city hall.

We'll get a craft of projects to the tune of $1 billion; the biggest MAPS initiative placed before the voters.

[checkthat]

If there is any organized opposition to MAPS 4, will they seize on the recent closures of many schools that received MAPS for Kids money?

[Pete]

Here is more info on the proposed animal shelter:

https://pawsformaps4.com/

[gopokes88]

Maps 5 will likely have a big shiny new thunder arena on it anyway. If you want the big sexy projects, just take maps 4 off, they’ll be back for maps 5.

[David]

Maps 5 will likely have a big shiny new thunder arena on it anyway. If you want the big sexy projects, just take maps 4 off, they’ll be back for maps 5.

That's not the sort of big sexy project that gets people out to vote in favor. Too many people are wise to the stadium cycle upgrade con.

[gopokes88]

That's not the sort of big sexy project that gets people out to vote in favor. Too many people are wise to the stadium cycle upgrade con.

When they ask for a new one, upgrade or lose them. Bet Seattle has some serious buyers remorse they made that principled stand.

By the time maps5 comes up for vote, gets funded and new Peake gets built, old Peale is 40 years old.

[David]

We have the Thunder because a bunch of OKC businessmen bought the team and brought them here because the OKC powers that be that they are a part of wanted a team. As long as that ownership group doesn't change I won't believe for a second that we are at risk of losing the Thunder.

[citywokchinesefood]

We have the Thunder because a bunch of OKC businessmen bought the team and brought them here because the OKC powers that be that they are a part of wanted a team. As long as that ownership group doesn't change I won't believe for a second that we are at risk of losing the Thunder.

They purchased the team for $350 million, the team is now worth an estimated $1.25 BILLION dollars. The NBA is experiencing growth and has a younger core audience that is more engaged on modern social media (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.) compared to its competitors NHL, MLS, NFL, and MLB. The value of the franchise can and will continue to increase drastically. The NBA is positioned better than any other American professional sports league to attract and international audience (e.g. The NBA is the most popular league for viewership in China. At this point it would be silly for the owners to sell especially with the direction the team is going currently. With the roster in a rebuild state the huge tax bills ownership has been footing for the past few years will go straight towards the profitability of the franchise. The Thunder have consistently made the ownership money, development of the league will only continue to contribute to that. It just doesn't make sense for them to sell the team.

[Laramie]

Again, you need to have a variety of projects on the MAPS initiatives...

As far as a MAPS 5 (reference: gopokes88 #1237) a new Peake may be a real possibility or you WILL see the NBA Thunder relocated). Expect a new arena 10 years from now 2030 to have a price tag of over $1 billion (On city owned land) of which the Thunder will be expected to contribute to its construction.

OKC has $190 million invested in The Peake, $10 in the Thunder practice facility.

There are plenty of cities willing to do as Memphis did in 2002, a $250 million mortgage to claim a grand prized NBA franchise to market the city's quality of life. Memphis received $90 million 20 year naming rights to the arena--those naming rights went to the NBA Grizzlies franchise.

[shawnw]

If you have ever communicated with someone at Palomar, which I have, they all have @okc.gov addresses, for whatever that's worth.

[soonerguru]

If you have ever communicated with someone at Palomar, which I have, they all have @okc.gov addresses, for whatever that's worth.

Interesting. It is a cause I support. Interested to hear what the plan is for homeless and mentally ill. In my mind it’s a facility of some sort but I’m not up on the plans, and I’m confused how that may intersect or differ from the plans for the diversion hub. Historically MAPS has been a great tool for building community infrastructure.

[soonerguru]

If you have ever communicated with someone at Palomar, which I have, they all have @okc.gov addresses, for whatever that's worth.

Interesting. It is a cause I support. Interested to hear what the plan is for homeless and mentally ill. In my mind it’s a facility of some sort but I’m not up on the plans, and I’m confused how that may intersect or differ from the plans for the diversion hub. Historically MAPS has been a great tool for building community infrastructure.

[catch22]

I think it’s time to give MAPS a break.

A no vote is permanent; the city won’t be able to pass another one if this one is voted down. . MAPS 4 is a solution looking for a problem.

[OKCRT]

I think it’s time to give MAPS a break.

A no vote is permanent; the city won’t be able to pass another one if this one is voted down. . MAPS 4 is a solution looking for a problem.

They better hope for a low voter turnout if they expect this to pass IMO.