Aquarium

[Midtowner]

I'm voting no on this and any future MAPS initiative with no aquarium. This would easily have been the most popular item on the MAPS agenda and it gets left out in favor of a horse arena for tourists and a minor league soccer stadium? What a joke. Maybe this vote fail and the Council can come back to us with projects people want.

[jerrywall]

I hope MAPS4 passes regardless, as I still think it's a net good thing, but can you imagine the message sent if this is the MAPS package that fails to pass.

[DallasOkie086]

No aquarium, no bueno for may family's vote. One of the main reason many people distrust the Maps program is due to corporate leveraging and politics. I can't think of any reason for this to be quickly discounted except for promises around using that land for the soccer stadium development and/or private development which hasnt been announced. Seems fishy to me.

[TheTravellers]

I hope MAPS4 passes regardless, as I still think it's a net good thing, but can you imagine the message sent if this is the MAPS package that fails to pass.

Yep, it'd be the same message that OKC has been putting out for decades - we don't care about doing the basic things (social and infrastructure) a city should do for their citizens. As I've said many times, I hate that we've had to use a completely inappropriate source of funding for those things, but if it's the only option we apparently have at this point, we need to use it, we're decades behind on some things... Maybe 8 years will be enough time for our city leaders to figure out how to do things right and keep doing them for the foreseeable future.

[shawnw]

hopefully everybody saying no aquarium no vote is also emailing their councilperson and CC'ing the mayor so that that feedback is registered somewhere more official. It's important that they get that feedback officially.

[jonny d]

hopefully everybody saying no aquarium no vote is also emailing their councilperson and CC'ing the mayor so that that feedback is registered somewhere more official. It's important that they get that feedback officially.

Nah, pissing and moaning, but not taking action, is the preferred outlet for people.

[Laramie]

I hope MAPS4 passes regardless, as I still think it's a net good thing, but can you imagine the message sent if this is the MAPS package that fails to pass.

I'm with you, bro +1

[Miracle121]

No aquarium means a no vote.

[DallasOkie086]

Nah, pissing and moaning, but not taking action, is the preferred outlet for people.

No just tweeting.

[Pete]

Great Gazette interviews wih Holt and JoBeth Hamon where they are quoted extensively on the process.

JoBeth says the slate was pretty much decided in April, long before the public meetings.

Holt simultaneously cites polling and minimizes it when discussing which projects were included:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/m...nt?oid=6505934

[Plutonic Panda]

Yep, it'd be the same message that OKC has been putting out for decades - we don't care about doing the basic things (social and infrastructure) a city should do for their citizens.

But that is not true and you saying that there are no other ways to generate that funding is bull as many other cities can do it. You seem to imply that is someone votes no on this MAPS they don't care about "basic things" and that is incorrect.

That said, I have come around to hoping this passes because I believe this will make the city better, but lets not kid ourselves. There are other ways to do it.

hopefully everybody saying no aquarium no vote is also emailing their councilperson and CC'ing the mayor so that that feedback is registered somewhere more official. It's important that they get that feedback officially.

Completely agree. I messaged Mayor Holt and he was very responsive. I wasn't the biggest fan of some of his answers as I think some of them were incorrect but overall letting the city know your displeasure goes a long way.

[BDP]

I'm voting no on this and any future MAPS initiative with no aquarium. This would easily have been the most popular item on the MAPS agenda and it gets left out in favor of a horse arena for tourists and a minor league soccer stadium? What a joke. Maybe this vote fail and the Council can come back to us with projects people want.

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

As civics projects, the arena and some sort of stadium would no doubt have community uses in addition to their core functions and, at least in terms of the arena, significant return on investment in terms of economic impact. Again, I'm not knocking the aquarium based on its own merits, but I think it would only function as an aquarium, right? Basically, it's a subsidized tourist attraction. While the arena and a stadium would both have multi-use components, some of which would serve the needs of the community at large in a participatory manner.

[TheTravellers]

But that is not true and you saying that there are no other ways to generate that funding is bull as many other cities can do it. You seem to imply that is someone votes no on this MAPS they don't care about "basic things" and that is incorrect....

If it wasn't true, we wouldn't have to use MAPS funds to fund "basic things". MAPS is supposed to only be used for certain things, and it's not what we're using them for this time. Again, from okc.gov - MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects) is Oklahoma City's visionary capital improvement program for new and upgraded sports, recreation, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities.

And I'm not saying that there are no other ways, I'm saying that OKC has chosen *not to use* the other generally accepted ways that other municipalities fund social services, bike lanes, sidewalks, bus stops, streetlights, etc. (bonds, permanent taxes of various sorts).

And I'm not implying that if someone votes no, they don't care about the "basic things", I'm saying that if MAPS4 doesn't pass, the message it sends will be that OKC in general, en masse, as a whole entity, doesn't care about social services, sidewalks, bike lanes, streetlights, etc.

You get an F for the first part of your post, nothing was right in it.

[king183]

Great Gazette interviews wih Holt and JoBeth Hamon where they are quoted extensively on the process.

JoBeth says the slate was pretty much decided in April, long before the public meetings.

Holt simultaneously cites polling and minimizes it when discussing which projects were included:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/m...nt?oid=6505934

Great article. JoBeth confirms what many of us suspected: that these projects had already been chosen and the process was not as open and transparent as Holt (and some of his reporter friends) were claiming. The presentations were merely a PR campaign rather than a "vetting" of the ideas.

[Pete]

It's also interesting to note that Holt specifically mentioned "a world-class aquarium operated by the zoo, possibly downtown' in his State of the City address in January.

That was the only time the online input of citizens was ever mentioned and the exact results of that process were never shared in any other way.

But by April when they had pretty much narrowed down projects to the 16 that would be given formal presentations (according to JoBeth in that article) -- and which turned out to be the exact projects on the MAPS 4 slate -- the aquarium was completely gone.


This answers the question about why we didn't hear more about it. They had done those renderings and videos last year, the project showed up on the online citizen input process enough for the mayor to mention it, yet for reasons that are still not clear, it was not allowed to go further.

And to claim there wasn't support of the council seems odd when Nikki Nice is the one that included it at the end of the last pubic meeting, the only reason we are talking about this in the first place.

[OKCRT]

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

As civics projects, the arena and some sort of stadium would no doubt have community uses in addition to their core functions and, at least in terms of the arena, significant return on investment in terms of economic impact. Again, I'm not knocking the aquarium based on its own merits, but I think it would only function as an aquarium, right? Basically, it's a subsidized tourist attraction. While the arena and a stadium would both have multi-use components, some of which would serve the needs of the community at large in a participatory manner.

MAPS is exactly for things like a World Class Aquarium and this would bring the tourists and folks from all around spending their money downtown and generating revenues. A soccer stadium is not going to generate the revenue like a World Class Aquarium would. They can tout all types of other events at a soccer stadium but most of those other events held there would just be taking from other venues. One would think that the powers that be would want the most bang for the buck. An Aquarium would payoff for years to come and become a destination for folks coming into the City.

[Midtowner]

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

This will be my kid's only opportunity to be able to really experience what marine life looks life without a trip out of town. The next MAPS project slate probably won't be for another at least 6 years. And it's my vote, so I'll absolutely hold other projects hostage as to my vote. From the look of this forum, I'm not the only one. I am generally in favor of MAPS, but there's nothing at all in this slate of projects that I'm even a little bit excited about and there's absolutely nothing preventing the City from sending these projects to a vote of the people individually and there's nothing preventing the City from sending a different slate of projects to the people with an aquarium on it... or at the very least, let's not claim we're having a public discussion of these projects and only allow public presentations of the projects deemed fit to go forward by the powers that be.

[Pete]

Just FYI, this MAPS would run 8 years and commence next April.

[BDP]

This will be my kid's only opportunity to be able to really experience what marine life looks life without a trip out of town. The next MAPS project slate probably won't be for another at least 6 years. And it's my vote, so I'll absolutely hold other projects hostage as to my vote. From the look of this forum, I'm not the only one. I am generally in favor of MAPS, but there's nothing at all in this slate of projects that I'm even a little bit excited about and there's absolutely nothing preventing the City from sending these projects to a vote of the people individually and there's nothing preventing the City from sending a different slate of projects to the people with an aquarium on it... or at the very least, let's not claim we're having a public discussion of these projects and only allow public presentations of the projects deemed fit to go forward by the powers that be.

That's cool. I was just curious as to what the philosophy behind your position is. I certainly wasn't trying to challenge your right to vote your conscious or anything.

I realize others feel the same way, as well, but you were very emphatic and absolute, so I just responded to you. I wasn't trying to single you out or anything either.

[HOT ROD]

Great Gazette interviews wih Holt and JoBeth Hamon where they are quoted extensively on the process.

JoBeth says the slate was pretty much decided in April, long before the public meetings.

Holt simultaneously cites polling and minimizes it when discussing which projects were included:

https://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/m...nt?oid=6505934

So?? W-H-Y did we have "public" hearings then?

If they were decided in April, then that means this MAPS is nowhere near the transparency claimed by the mayor.

I for one call for it to fail not only without the aquarium but also if it includes endowments. Otherwise, this is no longer visionary transformational for the city but becomes the real $1B handout Ed has been talking about.

Remove the endowments and find real solutions to fund operations and maintenance. Let the private sector create endowments (like is supposed to) and/or the city can raise hard taxes if parks and civic buildings need O&M budget.

I'd also remove the BRT component of transit and have that go to real buses, structures, and sidewalks/lighting since that WONT be near close to anything BRT.

I'd also argue removing the soccer specific minor league "stadium" as well as the fairground's horse arena - both of which claim to be multi-purpose but clearly both are specific to their own interest.

Removing endowments and the BRT aspect might get a Yes vote, but definitely would with the aquarium.

At the very minimum, the mayor should delay the vote to allow a proper presentation from the Aquarium so it can be included. Make Maps 4 10-years if need-be and raise tax by 0.25% to cover the missing O&M the more than $75M "endowments" (almost 10% of the MAPS budget - btw) is supposed to cover.

MAPS 4 needs a transformational project - the aquarium fits. Maps was not intended to be used for day-to-day civic issues but for buildings/venues/attractions.

[BDP]

MAPS is exactly for things like a World Class Aquarium and this would bring the tourists and folks from all around spending their money downtown and generating revenues.

That's interesting. That's the broader sort of "mission statement" for MAPS that I was curious about. That is, is the civic component, outside of ROI, not relevant to voters when it comes to evaluating MAPS projects.

If MAPS is primarily about "bring[ing] the tourists and folks from all around spending their money downtown and generating revenues." Then:

1) How does this disqualify the "horse arena", when the horse industry is one of the biggest proven generators of outside tourist revenue we have? It kind of seems like, by that criteria, it would be the key MAPS project.

2) Wouldn't the ubiquity of aquariums set the bar super high for this one to achieve that? When someone says "World Class Aquarium", I think of Monterey Bay and the Shedd Aquarium. I'm not sure what's been proposed is in that class, but maybe I don't fully grasp it. (EDIT: Obviously not definitive, but this list actually only lists the Shedd as "honorable mention" and doesn't mention Monterey at all. So, I guess I've never even been to one. Ha.).

A soccer stadium is not going to generate the revenue like a World Class Aquarium would. They can tout all types of other events at a soccer stadium but most of those other events held there would just be taking from other venues. One would think that the powers that be would want the most bang for the buck. An Aquarium would payoff for years to come and become a destination for folks coming into the City.

I in no way doubt that a good aquarium would be a successful attraction. I am interested, though, in the idea that MAPS projects are mainly to be public enterprise investments and civic use is not a primary component of consideration. MAPS was originally developed as a quality of life improvement initiative in reaction to losing competition for business looking to locate here due to a "low quality of life". To me, that implies a civics component, beyond just direct ROI.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do think what is proposed would be cool and serve to boost quality of life. I would vote for a MAPS that included it and would have loved to have seen it included, but I can't see it as quintessential as others do. At least not to the level that MAPS is not worthy of support without it.

And, in a way, it may actually be something that makes the most sense as a public/private venture, especially if it has the direct revenue potential many seem to feel it does. Maybe some corporate entity will step in to help make it happen... maybe help with land purchase and let the zoo develop it. I think this process has certainly elevated the profile of this project (which may be why Nikki Nice found a way to get it presented, even if DOA as far as a MAPS project. If it gets built, it should be the Nice Aquarium) and, even without making it on the actual MAPS initiative, may eventually lead to it becoming a reality. I think such a scenario could also apply to the State Fair Arena.

In a way, this would be the true sign of the long term success of MAPS. If OKC gets to the point where it can have a world class aquarium started through a gift, as the Shedd Aquarium was, then I think we'll know it has all truly paid off on a much bigger level.

[BDP]

I'd also argue removing the soccer specific minor league "stadium" as well as the fairground's horse arena - both of which claim to be multi-purpose but clearly both are specific to their own interest.

All your funding points are more than valid, as usual, but why would you disqualify the stadium and arena if they are "specific to their own interests", but not the aquarium for the same reason, when, clearly, the aquarium can be nothing but specific to its own interests.

I can understand being skeptical of any promises by any proposal as to what it will be used for, but the arena is actually already used for and by multiple interests. I am more skeptical of how the stadium would be used, as there's no track record, but of the three there really is only one that could basically be used for one thing, and that's the aquarium.

I totally get the concerns with the funding, the process, transparency, and even MAPS as method for funding anything in general, but I guess i'm missing the functional comparisons being made.

[HOT ROD]

The aquarium, as proposed, might be the coolest of the three and no doubt would bring some tourist dollars, but what about it makes it a fundamentally stronger project than "a horse arena and minor league soccer stadium", especially to the degree that one would hold other projects hostage until it's included?

I can answer that. The aquarium would be a world class addition to Oklahoma City and is not being side-stepped or bait-and-switched like the other two.

The Fairgrounds Arena (now being call the "OKC Fairgrounds" arena - get real!!) is also stated as MULTIPURPOSE but its design is clearly for horseshows only! And the fairgrounds have a revenue source and have come to the MAPS plate far too many times especially for the ridiculous "park" they've created. Again, nothing world class nor transformational about this either.

The soccer stadium is stated as a MULTIPURPOSE stadium to be home to the minor league OKC Energy; which is already home in OKC and would remain minor league (so nothing new/better), and a 10,000 seat stadium would not be anything "world class" or transformational and definitely couldn't be used for anything else (too small for concerts or meaningful football).

Now, if the stadium were say 30,000 expandable to 60,000 for a state championship or bowl game then that's transformational since OKC has neither. If the stadium would be part of a package to secure MLS designation for the Energy that too could be transformational. None of this is the case with a 10,000 seat stadium. Sorry.

Take the aquarium, as presented already has that WOW factor and would extend the canal to have a destination. That by itself makes it trump the other two, but also consider the fact that it'd be the biggest in Oklahoma and one of the best in the region with the Zoo running it - that makes it world class and highly transformational while at the same time also giving OKC yet another apex attraction and providing a 'connection' to the Boathouse district, Canal, river, and AICCM as well as Bricktown to the Adventure district.

If it were me, I'd have MAPS 4 be the following:

MAPS 4: $750M/7 years
* $90M Aquarium (showpiece, keeping in-line with the MAPS brand. Itself likely ensuring passage)
* $10M Canal Extension to Aquarium
* $65M Transit (less the "BRT" crap)
* $120M Parks (less the Endowment)
* $40M Innovation District ((less the Endowment)
* $75M Mental Health + Homeless facilities (instead of either-or, combine the two functions since most homeless need services and have more than one location)
* $60M Youth Centers (less the Endowment unless the purpose is to have them free for children)
* $15M Senior Center (no Endowment, sorry)
* $80M Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Trail connection (ensure every section arterial and school/library/center has full length, Bike Lanes in dense corridors in the inner core/Trails connections in less dense suburban OKC and near parks)
* $20M Lighting (ensure every section artery in OKC has street and pedestrian lighting full length)
* $100M Beautification (trees along every section artery, signs and statues for placemaking, public art and foliage at gateways and freeway interchanges [instead of empty grass], soundwalls to hide industrial areas along interstates, neighborhood specific streetscapes/furniture - Will Rogers World Airport (OMG, so UGLY now), OCU, Asia district, 39th street, Eastside, Capital Hill, ect)
* $20M Victim Services building
* $35M Animal Shelter
* $20M Clara Luper and Freedom Center (no endowment)

AND increase city sale tax rate by 0.10% for O&M (instead of endowments). There would still be room for RTA (esp with gas tax increase and the state allowing property tax for regional transit). In fact, OKC should look to raise the gas tax a little bit now, to help fund EMBARK. ..

[HOT ROD]

All your funding points are more than valid, as usual, but why would you disqualify the stadium and arena if they are "specific to their own interests", but not the aquarium for the same reason, when, clearly, the aquarium can be nothing but specific to its own interests.

The stadium and arena are purporting to be "multipurpose" and not specific to just soccer and horse-shows, yet that's what their designs are. The aquarium is not purporting to be anything other than, an aquarium (not multi- this or that).

This is why I would disqualify those but not the aquarium since it is the one being honest about what it will be. No bait and switch with the aquarium. No pretending to be a 'olympic swimming pool' either, just an aquarium.

The other two camps know they wouldn't get the votes as a '10,000 minor league soccer' home to the existing OKC Energy or a 15,000 (or whatever) horse show arena, so they need to 'say" they're "multipurpose" - playing on OKC's hopes for football games and large concerts (neither of which a 10K stadium would facilitate) or "a new home for the big house basketball" (which the horse show arena would not come near close to).

[BDP]

The stadium and arena are purporting to be "multipurpose" and not specific to just soccer and horse-shows, yet that's what their designs are. The aquarium is not purporting to be anything other than, an aquarium (not multi- this or that).

This is why I would disqualify those but not the aquarium since it is the one being honest about what it will be. No bait and switch with the aquarium. No pretending to be a 'olympic swimming pool' either, just an aquarium.

The other two camps know they wouldn't get the votes as a '10,000 minor league soccer' home to the existing OKC Energy or a 15,000 (or whatever) horse show arena, so they need to 'say" they're "multipurpose" - playing on OKC's hopes for football games and large concerts (neither of which a 10K stadium would facilitate) or "a new home for the big house basketball" (which the horse show arena would not come near close to).

OK.

I don't really have an emotional connection to any of them.

As for honesty, wellllll... I think that's always an issue with MAPS. Some of it has panned out and some of it hasn't. I guess I just don't see how the stadium or the arena couldn't be multi use. That is, I don't see anything that fundamentally prevents them from being so. Now, will they actually be managed that way? I have no idea. That's probably more of a trust issue and I can see why anyone would be skeptical about that, especially in the case of the stadium. I don't really see why a new arena would be exclusive to the horse industry as the current one isn't.

But, yeah, there's always a faith element to any of this, and if you can't trust it, I get that.