Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

[Edmond Hausfrau]

Nobody cared about these poor moms when it comes to a stadium for multiple millionaires over and over again to keep a group of millionaires in town chasing after a basketball.

It’s a “**** Funk” and/or “**** soccer” issue and not a “regressive tax on the poor to benefit the rich is evil” issue, don’t let people lie on here. Every argument against the soccer stadium applies to the Peake, and has applied to the Peake since (before) we got the Thunder. And people have been okay with that, and are still OK with that.

Sales tax increases are considered "regressive" by economists because the poor end up paying a larger portion of their (smaller) income. So regardless of how one feels about soccer, NBA, or NHL stadiums, funding anything by sales tax does place extra burden on the poor.

[jedicurt]

I’d be more on board with soccer if it were apparent that OKC was on a short list for expansion.

this is me too... it's not that i hate soccer. it's that i hate that we are being lied to that if we do this we WILL most likely get an MLS team, and there is no proof of that.

[okatty]

Has anyone seen any polls about the Maps vote?

[OKCRT]

this is me too... it's not that i hate soccer. it's that i hate that we are being lied to that if we do this we WILL most likely get an MLS team, and there is no proof of that.

OKC could have been on the list if they had some big money behind them. It's going to take a billionaire or a group of big money folks to get on that list. I haven't heard about anyone stepping up to make a commitment like that.

[chuck5815]

Has anyone seen any polls about the Maps vote?

It's pretty obvious that Holt is nervous about the vote, as he should be. This slate of projects totally sucks.

[king183]

It's pretty obvious that Holt is nervous about the vote, as he should be. This slate of projects totally sucks.

What makes it obvious he's nervous?

[Rover]

this is me too... it's not that i hate soccer. it's that i hate that we are being lied to that if we do this we WILL most likely get an MLS team, and there is no proof of that.

Where in the world are you seeing anyone other than internet gossipers saying that we WILL get a MLS team? Who are you calling liars?

[jedicurt]

Where in the world are you seeing anyone other than internet gossipers saying that we WILL get a MLS team? Who are you calling liars?

all of the statements that it will be expandable for an MLS team... from the proposal itself. it is implying that there is a plan, or that OKC would have a chance... etc. it's adding something onto the proposal to infer that it is a great likelihood that it will happen, and that is why we have to plan for it now, and that just is a false narrative used to try and get people to vote for it who aren't informed about the actual chances for us to get an expansion team

[Rover]

all of the statements that it will be expandable for an MLS team... from the proposal itself. it is implying that there is a plan, or that OKC would have a chance... etc. it's adding something onto the proposal to infer that it is a great likelihood that it will happen, and that is why we have to plan for it now, and that just is a false narrative used to try and get people to vote for it who aren't informed about the actual chances for us to get an expansion team

YOU are the one reading into it that they are claiming it WILL be. You are inferring something that isn't really implied. The truth is there is certainty that there will NOT be a chance for any upper tier team with no acceptable stadium. With a stadium there is at least a POSSIBILITY of upgrading IF we as a city and the private investor(s) meet certain other criteria and show significant interest and commitment. Claiming what you are is doing what you say the pro voices are doing... skewing and interpreting to paint an emotional picture and trying to convince others of the validity of your point of view. If you don't want a barely adequate public soccer/multi use stadium in OKC, that is great. Vote No. Those of us who think the city should act like the complete city it wants to be, and should be, will still vote Yes.

[David]

What makes it obvious he's nervous?

Wild assumptions, I suspect.

[jerrywall]

I have to say, as someone who's not gung ho about the stadium, knowing that it has the potential to be expanded for a MLS team if needed, is still valuable information. I don't see it as an attempt to trick or to deceive people, but rather to pre-silence a potential objection/roadblock/concern.

[David]

Honestly, this weird push over the last few pages has done nothing but firm up my likely yes vote. I mean, seriously:

This is just a friendly reminder: don’t let yourself or your friends be tricked. Make sure to vote no on this iteration of MAPS.

Don't get tricked? This almost couldn't be more condescending.

[chuck5815]

Honestly, this weird push over the last few pages has done nothing but firm up my likely yes vote. I mean, seriously:

Don't get tricked? This almost couldn't be more condescending.

Go for it then, Hoss.

Maps 5 should be really fun: "Uh, hey guys . . . MAPS 4 created hundreds of millions in unfunded liabilities AND we poor boyed the endowments, so you really don't have much of a choice here. #voteformaps5"

[David]

For reference, the list of projects and how I would vote individually:

PARKS: $140M - Strong yes
YOUTH CENTERS $110M - Yes
SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M - Yes
MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M - Strong Yes
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M - Strong Yes
TRANSIT $87M - Strong Yes
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M - Strong Yes
HOMELESSNESS $50M - Strong Yes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M - Iffy, probably No
ANIMAL SHELTER $38M - Yes
FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M - No
DIVERSION HUB $17M - Strong Yes
INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M - Yes
FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M - Strong Yes
BEAUTIFICATION $30M - Strong Yes
MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M - Undecided

There are certainly a few items that I wouldn't go for individually, but the list of projects I like the look of more than justifies a Yes vote to me. God, the $50M for a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness pretty much gets me there all by itself.

[chuck5815]

For reference, the list of projects and how I would vote individually:

PARKS: $140M - Strong yes
YOUTH CENTERS $110M - Yes
SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M - Yes
MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M - Strong Yes
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M - Strong Yes
TRANSIT $87M - Strong Yes
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M - Strong Yes
HOMELESSNESS $50M - Strong Yes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M - Iffy, probably No
ANIMAL SHELTER $38M - Yes
FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M - No
DIVERSION HUB $17M - Strong Yes
INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M - Yes
FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M - Strong Yes
BEAUTIFICATION $30M - Strong Yes
MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M - Undecided

There are certainly a few items that I wouldn't go for individually, but the list of projects I like the look of more than justifies a Yes vote to me. God, the $50M for a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness pretty much gets me there all by itself.

This isn't Seattle or San Francisco. We are not a rich city. And it's been proven repeatedly that these types of "investments" do not work. Also, it is not just $50MM, the tax payers will almost certainly be on the hook for an additional $400MM or more. So, like I said, MAPS 5 is going to be awesome.

"MAPS 4 will significantly transform Oklahoma City’s approach to reducing and eventually eliminating homelessness with a $50 million investment in truly affordable housing. This investment, accompanied by wrap-around services from existing providers, will help the city implement a successful “housing first” strategy. The $50 million is expected to leverage more than $400 million in funding from other sources." (emphasis added).

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

[jonny d]

For reference, the list of projects and how I would vote individually:

PARKS: $140M - Strong yes
YOUTH CENTERS $110M - Yes
SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M - Yes
MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M - Strong Yes
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M - Strong Yes
TRANSIT $87M - Strong Yes
SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M - Strong Yes
HOMELESSNESS $50M - Strong Yes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M - Iffy, probably No
ANIMAL SHELTER $38M - Yes
FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M - No
DIVERSION HUB $17M - Strong Yes
INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M - Yes
FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M - Strong Yes
BEAUTIFICATION $30M - Strong Yes
MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M - Undecided

There are certainly a few items that I wouldn't go for individually, but the list of projects I like the look of more than justifies a Yes vote to me. God, the $50M for a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness pretty much gets me there all by itself.

Why probably no on an arena improvement for an arena owned by the city? Landlords don't make renters pay for upgrades to keep a place modern and up to date, especially when they are not the sole tenant. These upgrades are not just for the Thunder's benefit. The Thunder won't pay for upgrades that they don't really benefit from.

[David]

This isn't Seattle or San Francisco. We are not a rich city. And it's been proven repeatedly that these types of "investments" do not work. Also, it is not just $50MM, the tax payers will almost certainly be on the hook for an additional $400MM or more. So, like I said, MAPS 5 is going to be awesome.

"MAPS 4 will significantly transform Oklahoma City’s approach to reducing and eventually eliminating homelessness with a $50 million investment in truly affordable housing. This investment, accompanied by wrap-around services from existing providers, will help the city implement a successful “housing first” strategy. The $50 million is expected to leverage more than $400 million in funding from other sources." (emphasis added).

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

Yes, I read all of that, literally just before I posted my list (I used Pete's info in post #1 for my numbers above). First, source your claim that "housing first" doesn't work. I have read the opposite, and I believe what I have read over your unsupplied proof. Second, if we can activate state or federal funds, then good. Bring that money to OKC, it almost certainly already exists and we aren't getting any of it as it stands now.

Also, "we aren't a rich city so we can't" is laughable. It's a non argument, and could have been used for every MAPS from 1 through 3. It would have been a bad argument against them, and that has not changed for 4.

[chuck5815]

Yes, I read all of that, literally just before I posted my list (I used Pete's info in post #1 for my numbers above). First, source your claim that "housing first" doesn't work. I have read the opposite, and I believe what I have read over your unsupplied proof. Second, if we can activate state or federal funds, then good. Bring that money to OKC, it almost certainly already exists and we aren't getting any of it as it stands now.

Also, "we aren't a rich city so we can't" is laughable. It's a non argument, and could have been used for every MAPS from 1 through 3. It would have been a bad argument against them, and that has not changed for 4.

San Francisco spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on solving homelessness, and the problem has only grown worse. It's laughable that any city, especially one like ours, would claim that it can "end homelessness." That's ****ing impossible, unless we want to throw billions upon billions of dollars at the problem, which I don't imagine we would. So, yes, we're not a rich city is a fine argument. I'm totally fine with MAPS so long as the projects remain true to the Framer's Intent (i.e. no debt, no unfunded liabilities, no social programs, etc.). But if the city wants to throw money into a fire, that money needs to have a dedicated, permanent funding source.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/cost...on-report.html

[David]

Why probably no on an arena improvement for an arena owned by the city? Landlords don't make renters pay for upgrades to keep a place modern and up to date, especially when they are not the sole tenant. These upgrades are not just for the Thunder's benefit. The Thunder won't pay for upgrades that they don't really benefit from.

Oh, I suppose. It doesn't excite me, but I won't say that I couldn't be convinced it was needed.

[David]

San Francisco spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on solving homelessness, and the problem has only grown worse. It's laughable that any city, especially one like ours, would claim that it can "end homelessness." That's ****ing impossible, unless we want to throw billions upon billions of dollars at the problem, which I don't imagine we would.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/cost...on-report.html

That would be comparable to OKC if OKC had anything near SF's housing costs. We don't.

[David]

Also, I want to point out real quick the cognitive dissonance of saying 1) we aren't a rich city like Seattle or San Francisco and 2) San Francisco housing costs are $450,000 per person which means OKC can't address the homeless problem.

Pick an internally consistent argument.

[Plutonic Panda]

That would be comparable to OKC if OKC had anything near SF's housing costs. We don't.

Denver, Austin, Portland, Seattle. Etc. I am not saying don’t build housing as I am strong advocate for helping the homeless but throwing money at the problem doesn’t work.

Housing costs are hardly the sole cause of the problem. Drug/alcohol addiction and mental health issues are a huge cause if not bigger than housing costs. Even with the insane housing costs there are tons of places in and around cities like SF, LA, and NYC where you can find rooms for under 1k a month. LA specifically has beds and rooms going for 500 or so around the metro.

Here is a comprehensive map of the homeless populations per state: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/

Overall I support these MAPS initiatives my only beef is I wish it included the Aquarium and I wish transit was taken out with more beautification included. Transit needs to be its own funding sources with a newly formed OKCDOT to leverage more local control(Denver just passed an initiative to form their own DOT: https://denverite.com/2019/11/05/it-...on-department/ ) and METRO issues bonds from property taxes to fund capital projects. I’m also on the fence about the fairgrounds coliseum as I think it should be more bold to compete with Fort Worth and I don’t like the fair board.

[chuck5815]

That would be comparable to OKC if OKC had anything near SF's housing costs. We don't.

It’s cute that you think homelessness boils down to one issue.

Newsflash: it doesn’t.

[Plutonic Panda]

PS, LA has allocated billions in less than five years for the homeless and problem has magnified ten fold over what it was prior. Homeless deaths have doubled in 10 years.

[TheTravellers]

Denver, Austin, Portland, Seattle. Etc. I am not saying don’t build housing as I am strong advocate for helping the homeless but throwing money at the problem doesn’t work.

Housing costs are hardly the sole cause of the problem. Drug/alcohol addiction and mental health issues are a huge cause if not bigger than housing costs. Even with the insane housing costs there are tons of places in and around cities like SF, LA, and NYC where you can find rooms for under 1k a month. LA specifically has beds and rooms going for 500 or so around the metro.

Here is a comprehensive map of the homeless populations per state: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/

Overall I support these MAPS initiatives my only beef is I wish it included the Aquarium and I wish transit was taken out with more beautification included. Transit needs to be its own funding sources with a newly formed OKCDOT to leverage more local control(Denver just passed an initiative to form their own DOT: https://denverite.com/2019/11/05/it-...on-department/ ) and METRO issues bonds from property taxes to fund capital projects. I’m also on the fence about the fairgrounds coliseum as I think it should be more bold to compete with Fort Worth and I don’t like the fair board.

What don't you understand about this - if you can put homeless people with problems (alcohol, drug, mental) in a house or apartment first, then they can address those problems much better than if they were out on the street or going from shelter to shelter?

Yeah, some homeless won't work that way, some will fail, no solution is perfect, but this one probably has the highest chance of success.