Widgets Magazine
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Paws For Maps 4

  1. #1

    Default Paws For Maps 4

    I posted a comment in the ‘Ideas For Maps’ thread a while back about including funding for a new animal shelter to replace our current shelter. Americans love their pets and spend hundreds of millions annually on their care and feeding. If we truly love animals, and all data says we do, it should hurt our hearts to see abandoned and unwanted pets living in overcrowded, outmoded conditions that make it more difficult to get them adopted, and that negatively affect their quality of life while they’re there.

    I’d like to see all of us support funding for a new shelter. It’s the right thing to do. Given the amount of money they anticipate collecting for Maps4, the request for funds for a shelter is small - about 5 percent of total revenue. It’s equivalent to one Senior Wellness Center expenditure.

    Have a look at the website and help support this worthy project.

    pawsformaps4.com

  2. #2

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Oh, and take a look at their video!

    https://vimeo.com/351783380

  3. #3

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    The first second the puppers and kitties popped on the screen I was convinced... give them all the MAPS money... and lost of pets.

  4. Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    These people are doing great work. They have lowered OKC's kill rate which used to be sky high. They currently have a 85% live animal release rate and are trying to get it to 90%. The shelter is underfunded and outdated and the MAPS money would go a long way towards making us a no kill shelter,

  5. #5

    MAPS3 Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Whatever they're asking for the shelter, $43 million? MAPS 4 should round the figure to $45 million, give them a cushion to work with for a sound structure 5x the current size; replace the pipes, sewer lines and electrical systems, salvage what you can of the old structures for future backup.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    This is a no brainer. Look at our Zoo. The recurring funding stream created a place for all. Let's do the same for the creatures we bred to give us good feels. Start with Paws 4 Maps 4. Cheap money when compared to what is spent across the board. They need a good PR firm to step in and steer the sentiment of the voter.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Two paws up for this! I visited the shelter for the first time in years and I was struck by a few things: 1. It’s a smelly, depressing dump. It looks like something you would find in either a smaller city or a city that literally doesn’t care about its animal population. 2. The people who work there clearly care about the animals and are working hard in a depressing facility in which a lot of animals have to be put down. 3. A really nice new one, able to meet demand, could actually become a destination for people, which would greatly increase adoptions.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    this is far to much money to spend on this

  9. #9

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner View Post
    this is far to much money to spend on this
    I agree. $43 million for animal shelter is quite high.

    Feels like this maps is just a money grab right now. Every special interest is throwing their ideas in the ring asking for a ton of money.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    I'm all for anything for pets!

  11. Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner View Post
    this is far to much money to spend on this
    With respect, is your statement based on "just too much money for an animal shelter" or is it based on "this is too much money for what OKC needs for our current animal population and current standards for municipal shelters" I hope that makes sense.. basically, no one should spend $43 million on a shelter versus looking at this project and what they are proposing...$43 million is too much? Not trying to pick a fight but curious as to the reasoning behind your statement.

  12. Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    From their website:

    Shelters are uncommonly expensive buildings. Huge amounts of drainage, and air-handling systems. What are the two most-expensive rooms in a house? Kitchens and bathrooms. An animal shelter really is a series of rooms that serve as kitchens and bathrooms.
    $500 to $600 per square foot is not uncommon.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner View Post
    this is far to much money to spend on this
    I actually sat in on a Public Works meeting and watched them calculate the estimate for building/complex. The problem with animal shelters is all of the drainage, ventilation, and natural lighting requirements to do it right. It would be an absolute waste of tax payer money to try to renovate the existing building.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeepnokc View Post
    With respect, is your statement based on "just too much money for an animal shelter" or is it based on "this is too much money for what OKC needs for our current animal population and current standards for municipal shelters" I hope that makes sense.. basically, no one should spend $43 million on a shelter versus looking at this project and what they are proposing...$43 million is too much? Not trying to pick a fight but curious as to the reasoning behind your statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeepnokc View Post
    From their website:

    Shelters are uncommonly expensive buildings. Huge amounts of drainage, and air-handling systems. What are the two most-expensive rooms in a house? Kitchens and bathrooms. An animal shelter really is a series of rooms that serve as kitchens and bathrooms.
    $500 to $600 per square foot is not uncommon.
    thank you for the question it really did make me think about an answer ...

    your second post is something i didn't know thank you for posting that and that puts the high cost in a better context ..

    that being said i'm not sure this would be a good use of this level of funding vs what we could spend that 43 mil on (or lets say we give 23 mil for a shelter ) what could we spend the other 20 mil on that would effect a larger part of the pop or increase QoL is a better way ie sidewalks senior center parks ect ..

  15. #15

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    The shelter can’t even be renovated for that amount. What we have barely functions as a shelter and wasn’t even built for that. It’s really not that much money for a core city service that isn’t being met. It’s similar to the price of ONE senior wellness center. Not trying to be argumentative.

    I also don't understand your comment on the number of people this impacts. The animal shelter is, as stated above, a core city service that impacts every neighborhood in the city, Nichols Hills, Del City, and Valley Brook. It affects all of the animals in our city.

    I respect if you have another opinion.

    It would be helpful to watch the video to get a sense of this history here and the unmet need.

    https://vimeo.com/351783380

  16. #16

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    My issue with spending on the animal shelter goes along with other government spending is we are subsidizing irresponsibly. Animal owners don’t want a dog, dump it and someone else will take care of my problem.

    Getting off my soapbox, I understand the need and respect the people who work there. They and the animals deserve a better place.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by emtefury View Post
    My issue with spending on the animal shelter goes along with other government spending is we are subsidizing irresponsibly. Animal owners don’t want a dog, dump it and someone else will take care of my problem.

    Getting off my soapbox, I understand the need and respect the people who work there. They and the animals deserve a better place.
    While I see your point, irresponsible pet owners don’t really care whether we have a nice shelter. They’ll dump their pets in the street or at a substandard facility without a second thought. A new facility won’t make them more or less likely to become a responsible pet owner.

    Like children, puppies and kittens don’t ask to be born, so we, as a society, have to do what is ethically right for them. I don’t see this as a sop to irresponsible pet owners, but rather, a statement that Oklahoma City cares for the unfortunate and unwanted, be they pets or people. It’s an ethical issue for me. That’s my opinion.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    I agree. $43 million for animal shelter is quite high.

    Feels like this maps is just a money grab right now. Every special interest is throwing their ideas in the ring asking for a ton of money.
    The animal shelter isn't a special interest who is looking for a handout/taxpayer subsidy. It is an essential city service, and they are currently operating in what others have called substandard facilities--a description that is far too optimistic, in my opinion. It's a disaster of a facility: it puts public health at risk and it puts the animals and people who work there at risk.

    This is the type of project that should be built with bonds, especially with interest rates as low as they are, but that doesn't appear to be a viable solution at this point, so the MAPS tax is an acceptable alternative. I'll strongly support the inclusion of this project if they don't come up with a bond financing alternative.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Charge pet owners an initial pet fee to own an animal. So the responsible ones will help subsidize those who don’t register but enough will and use this money to pay for shelters. Have an annual smaller renewal fee. So you pay a one time starter fee (higher cost) and an annual renewal fee. Same price regardless how many animals. List the type pets that need it (dogs/cats) but you only pay it once. So if you buy a dog in Jan you pay X and if you buy a cat in Jun no charge since you have a permit. Next Jan pay a smaller annual renewal fee. All can be done online.

    This way pet owners are paying for pet problems.

  20. Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    Charge pet owners an initial pet fee to own an animal. So the responsible ones will help subsidize those who don’t register but enough will and use this money to pay for shelters. Have an annual smaller renewal fee. So you pay a one time starter fee (higher cost) and an annual renewal fee. Same price regardless how many animals. List the type pets that need it (dogs/cats) but you only pay it once. So if you buy a dog in Jan you pay X and if you buy a cat in Jun no charge since you have a permit. Next Jan pay a smaller annual renewal fee. All can be done online.

    This way pet owners are paying for pet problems.
    So if non-pet-owners don't have to pay for pet problems, then non-drivers don't have to pay for roads, people that don't have kids don't have to pay for schools, ad nauseum. That's not a good or right way of thinking about how civilization and a society works.

    BTW, I fully support a new animal shelter in MAPS4. Cats and dogs seem to be looked upon more as just animals than pets (therefore treated worse) by a larger amount of people here than I've experienced in other places, so to me, a state-of-the-art animal shelter here is needed more than in other places I've lived.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    So if non-pet-owners don't have to pay for pet problems, then non-drivers don't have to pay for roads, people that don't have kids don't have to pay for schools, ad nauseum. That's not a good or right way of thinking about how civilization and a society works.

    BTW, I fully support a new animal shelter in MAPS4. Cats and dogs seem to be looked upon more as just animals than pets (therefore treated worse) by a larger amount of people here than I've experienced in other places, so to me, a state-of-the-art animal shelter here is needed more than in other places I've lived.
    99% of people need cars thus roads. All food and goods are delivered on roads. Utilities under roads, electric along roads. They are a necessity. Pets are not.

    Also Maps should be for major projects that are transformative.

    Speaking of roads, I elect to pay a toll even though I can use alt roads. I choose to do so. Pet owners choose them. Maybe if paying a fee then enough money so those same owners won’t dump them knowing they can take to shelter paid for by pet owners. Pets are an option. Schools are mandatory. Roads are necessity.

    I would bet most pet owners would gladly pay an extra fee to have a better shelter I know I would.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    The stray dogs and cats will do their best to live and reproduce regardless if they are owned by a human( Probably survive by eating human garbage or small rodents.) Pet owners who adopted from a shelter or rescue are already doing a lot to help the problem. They provide a loving home and almost always pay the shot fees. Rescue groups also usually don't adopt out pets who haven't already been spayed or neutered. If you want to go after people causing over pet population go after the breeders and those who don't follow ther rules.

    An inital pet fee would be a nightmare to enforce and would just drive the dishonest people away from shelters and rescue groups and known of the pets they get outside of these organizations will be neutered or spayed. But hey at least non-pet owners can avoid this particular tax and start planning out how to avoid paying a tax on a city jail because they don't commit crimes and don't intend to.

  23. Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    ...

    Also Maps should be for major projects that are transformative.

    ...
    Um, yeah, like a new animal shelter which meets both of those criteria.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by jn1780 View Post
    The stray dogs and cats will do their best to live and reproduce regardless if they are owned by a human( Probably survive by eating human garbage or small rodents.) Pet owners who adopted from a shelter or rescue are already doing a lot to help the problem. They provide a loving home and almost always pay the shot fees. Rescue groups also usually don't adopt out pets who haven't already been spayed or neutered. If you want to go after people causing over pet population go after the breeders and those who don't follow ther rules.

    An inital pet fee would be a nightmare to enforce and would just drive the dishonest people away from shelters and rescue groups and known of the pets they get outside of these organizations will be neutered or spayed. But hey at least non-pet owners can avoid this particular tax and start planning out how to avoid paying a tax on a city jail because they don't commit crimes and don't intend to.
    I’m for better shelters just not through MAPS is all. Its a pet project (no pun intended) and then everyone wants a pet project and if they don’t get it they get upset. It sets a bad precedence. MAPS honestly may have run its course already due to city not even knowing what we need in Aug and yet gonna scratch something together and vote in Dec?

    We need to reserve MAPS for bigger projects and find a different method to fund shelter. I actually have stated several times doing a 10 year MAPS is bad due to many factors. Things change fast nowadays and locking into 10 years so fast shuts the door on anything else for the duration. Here it is Aug and we have no idea what we really need or want. A few months ago it was Aquarium. Now its animal shelter. Yet in Dec vote on a tax that we really are clueless what needs are? Do a 2 year MAPS for $200m then you can dial in in needs and roll out faster. Can adjust to changing city. Bricktown os almost built out and our city and growth patterns will change fast. We also need better transpo methods.

    If we roll out a10 year tax on pet projects its gonna fail. Too many will not like something. Our needs are not as massive now as when MAPS started so tailor them down into smaller increments.

  25. #25

    Default Re: Paws For Maps 4

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    I’m for better shelters just not through MAPS is all. Its a pet project (no pun intended) and then everyone wants a pet project and if they don’t get it they get upset. It sets a bad precedence. MAPS honestly may have run its course already due to city not even knowing what we need in Aug and yet gonna scratch something together and vote in Dec?

    We need to reserve MAPS for bigger projects and find a different method to fund shelter. I actually have stated several times doing a 10 year MAPS is bad due to many factors. Things change fast nowadays and locking into 10 years so fast shuts the door on anything else for the duration. Here it is Aug and we have no idea what we really need or want. A few months ago it was Aquarium. Now its animal shelter. Yet in Dec vote on a tax that we really are clueless what needs are? Do a 2 year MAPS for $200m then you can dial in in needs and roll out faster. Can adjust to changing city. Bricktown os almost built out and our city and growth patterns will change fast. We also need better transpo methods.

    If we roll out a10 year tax on pet projects its gonna fail. Too many will not like something. Our needs are not as massive now as when MAPS started so tailor them down into smaller increments.
    Why?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. What will/should be in MAPS 4?
    By bige in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 09:24 AM
  2. My dog won't stop eating at her Paws
    By blui25 in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 08:18 AM
  3. New MAPS Website- MAPS Facts.org
    By Urban Pioneer in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 11-30-2009, 12:52 PM
  4. did the original maps have more information disclosed than maps 3?
    By soonerfan_in_okc in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-27-2009, 02:45 AM
  5. Oklahoman Coverage: Maps & Maps 3
    By Doug Loudenback in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-14-2009, 08:21 PM

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