Widgets Magazine
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 311
  1. #26

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I will be a no vote on maps for the first time

  2. #27

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I am just curious everyone's main objections to the projects for MAPS? Like, are there any on there that are inherently bad or detrimental to OKC? If so, please enlighten me. I see a focus on homelessness, mental health, bus transit, sidewalks, the Innovation Link, and the Peake (constant improvements are necessary to keep the arena NBA-quality) as reasons to vote yes. I only have qualms with the soccer stadium. But I am not letting great be the enemy of good.

  3. #28

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I think many of these projects will have a much greater impact down the road than it seems they will now. Some of the corridor improvements alone could have transformational impacts.

    The social services projects may be harder to track, but they will make our city a better place. Some of them may not work as well as hoped but we are never going to be able to count on help from the state or feds at this point. They would let OKC rot if they could.

    The bike, sidewalk, trees and transit and beautification may not be sexy like a single big building or stadium, but will help us realize many of the urbanist goals we have been discussing since I joined this forum 14 years ago (amazing to think about that).

    Some of the best MAPS projects look better in hindsight, like the library. I think many of these things won't necessarily be recognized as MAPS projects but our city will be a much better place as a result of us having them.

    I am a definite yes vote on MAPS, even though there are projects included I have asked many questions about.

  4. #29

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I think I will support it. I can't vote in OKC elections anyways so it doesn't really matter. That said I am not too happy with the final list of projects. I wish we would have gave it more money and thought bolder adding real light-rail lines(NOT STREETCARS!!!!) and the aquarium.

  5. #30

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    New state fair arena needs to be used for more than a horse barn. Ice hockey needs a home.

  6. Post Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Where to begin.

    In general I am in favor of the transformative projects but I agree with Ed that we should be increasing tax rate not misusing MAPS to create endowments that could very well be abused. Im not sure why we have to increase MAPS by $100M in endowments to fund operations for these - let me go into specific details.

    Total Requested $948M
    Total Endowments $76M

    My Pics $770M
    My Pics fully funded $871M (doing real BRT, full beautification, full parks (no endowment), full sidewalks)

    MAPS 4

    * PARKS $140M - I'm in favor of the parks projects but NOT in favor of the Endowment since parks are a municipal function. Subtract out the $16.5M slush fund (aka Endowment) and IMO this is a logical transformative go at $124M

    (I'd even be open to keeping this at $140M with all the funds going to parks since OKC is long overdue here).

    * YOUTH CENTER $110M - I'm in favor of youth centers, IMO should have been done before Senior Centers. I'm not in favor of the endowment here since there will be private entities running the facilities. IF (and a big IF) the Endowment fund would establish future facility and/or equipment upgrades ONLY, I would support such a CAPITAL Endowment fund. But this is written as an Operations Fund, which again should be either part of the municipal government or private operations. Maybe i'd support the full amount if it meant youth had no fees to enter. Anyway - Go at $80M

    * Senior Wellness Centers $30M - I'm generally in favor of this but I thought we already got 5 of them paid for. Why do we need 5 of these? But anyway, I support the new facility. Not in favor of the endowment, as I mentioned for the youth - there are private entities running these. Go at $15M only.

    * Mental Health & Addiction $40M - full support. Not sure why there's $7M here for Housing when there's another housing initiative though. .....

    * Family Justice Center (Palomar) $38M - full support.

    * Transit $87M - full support. Should be even higher actually.
    $10M bus stops YES
    $60M transit buses YES (should be more here, to get real articulated BRT and a few double deckers for commuter bus)
    $12M signal prioritization YES
    $5M acquisition YES

    IMO I'd up this to $100M and get real BRT buses as well as some commuter bus. I know ACOG will lead that effort but since EMBARK is running Norman there's reason to implement Commuter bus to Norman immediately.

    I don't like the idea at all of using 40' buses for BRT, that's ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of BRT - frequent vehicles with available seating with rapid transportability (paraphrased). I'd argue those 40' buses will fill up very quickly before anybody in the Classen corridor could think of getting on-board. This is the beauty of the articulated buses, they can hold way more people for crush rush hour loads. I think 40' buses will enact the SAME reaction that the loop streetcar has, should have done it right the first time.

    BTW, I'm not against the streetcar or its loops. I just think there should have been a dual track along Sheridan and probably one along N Broadway to S Robinson to provide for easy expansion and flexibility. Another $10M would have likely covered that.

    * Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Trails, Streetlights $87M - Full support
    I think this should have been higher as well, OKC dropped the ball here long ago and now should catch up.
    $55M sidewalks (should be $80M)
    $20M bike lanes
    $8M trail conectivity (not sure what this means???)
    $4M Arterial Lights (can this be implemented immediately, at the same time with sidewalk and bus routes)

    I'd argue for $112M here.

    * Homelessness $50M. Support
    I generally support this one however I do agree there should be some sort of rules/regulations established. OKC is way behind the curve here as Seattle has long implemented public housing and administered it. I'd recommend OKC benchmark Seattle on the rules and regulations managing these facilities. You can't just only rely on the private sector handouts here, big cities also provide low cost housing; using SRO type with onboard security and possible services. Perhaps this could be piggy-backed with the mental health center for synergy.

    I do not agree with Greenwell per his verbiage of accountability benchmarks. Not sure how that would be implemented other than year 1 we had X homeless on the streets and year 2 we had Y. Yet that does nothing to manage the $50M investment in a building(s) to house homeless.

    Again, this is where I think we can combine the Mental Health center budget, perhaps create two or more combination Mental Health centers with Housing - so the mental health operations could manage it according to city bylaws. By combining, we could have more than one location for both operations; it'd be nice to have one near downtown (of course) but also in the poor areas of the southside and eastside; combining could open the possibility for 3 or 4 such centers.

    * Chesapeake Energy Arena $115M - in favor.
    I'm in favor of this and it has little to do with the Thunder. It has to do with the city being the owner of the buildings, they need to be upgraded to compete with other markets. In my opinion, this is what TEMPORARY TAXES like Maps are all about - specific, quick capital expenditures outside of the general municipal function/fund.

    I think OKC should have gone big the first time and not reduced the original upgrade. We probably wouldn't need as much now if that were the case, but upgrades to sound, lighting, electronics, and seats will always be the case.

    I'd love if the OKC Thunder could partner with the city to ensure all original amenities to the building are implemented. Thunder has a vested interest and has received preference for 10 years for the building and associated revenues. Let's invest in the facility as a partnership, keeping OKC at the top of the fan experience in the NBA.

    * Animal Shelter $38M - Full Support.

    * Fairgrounds Coliseum $63M - Do Not Support
    Sorry, I would not fund any more projects for the fairgrounds. They can rename it back to the "Oklahoma City Fairgrounds" all they want. But they killed the experience of the fair yet are always coming to the city for capital funds for this or that. Why they refused to use revenue generated to maintain existing venues is beyond me, but to then ask for a new arena.

    Fairgrounds is a big generator for OKC and receives MOST of the Hotel-Motel tax. This and revenue from operations should be enough for the fairgrounds to run a top knotch operation. If they want an arena they should use bonding capacity of OKC and allow the hotel-motel tax to pay it off.

    Again, the fairground is not run by OKC or municipal operations (unlike the Cox and Chesapeake arena) - therefore, the fairgrounds should not be privy to every MAPS, Sorry no more pork-barrel here.

    * Diversion Hub $17M - full support.

    * Innovation District $71M - support but not the $21M endowment.
    Again, these are private businesses that want to receive a $21M endowment from the city. That should be the other way around, the city builds the capital expense for the district $50M and the ORMF creates the private endowment fund for operations. ...

    I support this at $50M only. I would support more if it included a much better connection/cap over I-235 but NOT for an endowment. ...

    * Freedom Center and Clara Luper Center $25M - support but not the endowment per se.
    Again, there are private organizations who will run these facilities and there likely will be an admissions fee charged. Therefore, not seeing why the city needs to build the buildings AND fund operations.

    Now, if we decide that these fine new facilities would become part of the parks department then perhaps an endowment might be a good idea since these are building specific uses and not just general fund operations/maintenance.

    I'd support this for $16M only.

    * Beautification $30M - full support.
    This is where I think we should easily double this to $60M. OKC is long far behind the curve on beautification as a city wide effort. I can't believe OKC doesn't even have a municipal position in charge of water and maintenance of plants/foliage.

    Since we're so behind I think this should be fully supported, even the $5M in operations since that would go to adding staff and not an endowment. Hopefully foliage selected is region appropriate since OKC does get enough rain, after the $5M emergency fund is consumed this should go to the parks department (who should create dedicated staff for this operation).

    * Multipurpose Stadium $37M - no support.
    I'm not against the stadium but I am against the current effort led by Funk. There's nothing concrete in their plan. They're looking to the city to bail them out, plain and simple. Also, the stadium is too small; $10K seats??? We already have larger than that with the bricktown ballpark, why not look to use it while OKC is in USL?

    I'd be in favor of this if there were a REAL effort to get OKC an MLS team, with Funk or whoever being owner and having funds for the fee/team, a location established/paid or at least conditionally agreed, and the stadium being no smaller than 25K seats. You can't have it both ways, either it's a Multipurpose stadium (therefore needing more than 20K seats for a city the size of OKC) or its a Soccer specific stadium built to soccer specifics 10K or whatever it is.

    Make up your minds here and come back later. Not fully against this but AM in its current edition.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  7. #32

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    It is really.... interesting... to see the general response here versus the general response I've seen on other platforms. I've seen a ton of praise that it is a MAPS that [generally] focuses on citizens and the entire city, which is apparently what everyone outside of this forum wanted and was vocal about, versus big downtown civic projects. People actually seem really enthused that it addressed a number of social issues: homelessness, mental illness/addition, beautification/transit/sidewalks, etc. It doesn't have big sexy projects like the aquarium (which I agree is disappointing) but I think it addresses a number of key issues that desperately need addressing.

    If you think it was simply a pre-determined outcome (and I can see why some would), apparently it didn't include the entire council. At least JoBeth has already been outspoken on her page that she doesn't like how low it is aiming for many of the social services and apparently feels like the included programs started from a compromised position already.

    And simply LOL if you're waiting for the city to "lobby" this state's legislature to raise taxes instead of doing it this way. Good luck with that.......

  8. #33

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I think the issue for me is that many of the projects are good, but they aren’t MAPS.

    Half the projects make me think off MAPS projects, but the other half just feel like “crap the city should be doing because we’re a city”. I don’t think they should be part of MAPS, but I would support them if it was a general sales tax increase to fund city issues.

  9. Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    And I made my list before reading about the aquarium. Add that to my list. ...

    Total Requested $1,048M
    Total Endowments $76M

    My Pics $870M
    My Pics - fully funded $971M

    very doable actually.
    Oklahoma City, the RENAISSANCE CITY!

  10. #35

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I don't agree with the final list but it is making OKC better. I'll give up 1 cent for the rest of my life to help make this city one of the best in the country. Regardless if I like the list or not.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,763
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Nice perspective

  12. Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by d-usa View Post
    I think the issue for me is that many of the projects are good, but they aren’t MAPS.

    Half the projects make me think off MAPS projects, but the other half just feel like “crap the city should be doing because we’re a city”. I don’t think they should be part of MAPS, but I would support them if it was a general sales tax increase to fund city issues.
    Totally agree, this is the city's definition, from their website: "MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects) is Oklahoma City's visionary capital improvement program for new and upgraded sports, recreation, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities."

    Unfortunately, we've completely failed at funding the "we should be doing these because that's what a city does" things for decades, and apparently MAPS is the only vehicle for doing what we should've been doing for years.

  13. #38

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by HOT ROD View Post
    Where to begin.

    In general I am in favor of the transformative projects but I agree with Ed that we should be increasing tax rate not misusing MAPS to create endowments that could very well be abused. Im not sure why we have to increase MAPS by $100M in endowments to fund operations for these - let me go into specific details.

    Total Requested $948M
    Total Endowments $76M

    My Pics $770M
    My Pics fully funded $871M (doing real BRT, full beautification, full parks (no endowment), full sidewalks)

    MAPS 4

    * PARKS $140M - I'm in favor of the parks projects but NOT in favor of the Endowment since parks are a municipal function. Subtract out the $16.5M slush fund (aka Endowment) and IMO this is a logical transformative go at $124M

    (I'd even be open to keeping this at $140M with all the funds going to parks since OKC is long overdue here).

    * YOUTH CENTER $110M - I'm in favor of youth centers, IMO should have been done before Senior Centers. I'm not in favor of the endowment here since there will be private entities running the facilities. IF (and a big IF) the Endowment fund would establish future facility and/or equipment upgrades ONLY, I would support such a CAPITAL Endowment fund. But this is written as an Operations Fund, which again should be either part of the municipal government or private operations. Maybe i'd support the full amount if it meant youth had no fees to enter. Anyway - Go at $80M

    * Senior Wellness Centers $30M - I'm generally in favor of this but I thought we already got 5 of them paid for. Why do we need 5 of these? But anyway, I support the new facility. Not in favor of the endowment, as I mentioned for the youth - there are private entities running these. Go at $15M only.

    * Mental Health & Addiction $40M - full support. Not sure why there's $7M here for Housing when there's another housing initiative though. .....

    * Family Justice Center (Palomar) $38M - full support.

    * Transit $87M - full support. Should be even higher actually.
    $10M bus stops YES
    $60M transit buses YES (should be more here, to get real articulated BRT and a few double deckers for commuter bus)
    $12M signal prioritization YES
    $5M acquisition YES

    IMO I'd up this to $100M and get real BRT buses as well as some commuter bus. I know ACOG will lead that effort but since EMBARK is running Norman there's reason to implement Commuter bus to Norman immediately.

    I don't like the idea at all of using 40' buses for BRT, that's ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of BRT - frequent vehicles with available seating with rapid transportability (paraphrased). I'd argue those 40' buses will fill up very quickly before anybody in the Classen corridor could think of getting on-board. This is the beauty of the articulated buses, they can hold way more people for crush rush hour loads. I think 40' buses will enact the SAME reaction that the loop streetcar has, should have done it right the first time.

    BTW, I'm not against the streetcar or its loops. I just think there should have been a dual track along Sheridan and probably one along N Broadway to S Robinson to provide for easy expansion and flexibility. Another $10M would have likely covered that.

    * Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Trails, Streetlights $87M - Full support
    I think this should have been higher as well, OKC dropped the ball here long ago and now should catch up.
    $55M sidewalks (should be $80M)
    $20M bike lanes
    $8M trail conectivity (not sure what this means???)
    $4M Arterial Lights (can this be implemented immediately, at the same time with sidewalk and bus routes)

    I'd argue for $112M here.

    * Homelessness $50M. Support
    I generally support this one however I do agree there should be some sort of rules/regulations established. OKC is way behind the curve here as Seattle has long implemented public housing and administered it. I'd recommend OKC benchmark Seattle on the rules and regulations managing these facilities. You can't just only rely on the private sector handouts here, big cities also provide low cost housing; using SRO type with onboard security and possible services. Perhaps this could be piggy-backed with the mental health center for synergy.

    I do not agree with Greenwell per his verbiage of accountability benchmarks. Not sure how that would be implemented other than year 1 we had X homeless on the streets and year 2 we had Y. Yet that does nothing to manage the $50M investment in a building(s) to house homeless.

    Again, this is where I think we can combine the Mental Health center budget, perhaps create two or more combination Mental Health centers with Housing - so the mental health operations could manage it according to city bylaws. By combining, we could have more than one location for both operations; it'd be nice to have one near downtown (of course) but also in the poor areas of the southside and eastside; combining could open the possibility for 3 or 4 such centers.

    * Chesapeake Energy Arena $115M - in favor.
    I'm in favor of this and it has little to do with the Thunder. It has to do with the city being the owner of the buildings, they need to be upgraded to compete with other markets. In my opinion, this is what TEMPORARY TAXES like Maps are all about - specific, quick capital expenditures outside of the general municipal function/fund.

    I think OKC should have gone big the first time and not reduced the original upgrade. We probably wouldn't need as much now if that were the case, but upgrades to sound, lighting, electronics, and seats will always be the case.

    I'd love if the OKC Thunder could partner with the city to ensure all original amenities to the building are implemented. Thunder has a vested interest and has received preference for 10 years for the building and associated revenues. Let's invest in the facility as a partnership, keeping OKC at the top of the fan experience in the NBA.

    * Animal Shelter $38M - Full Support.

    * Fairgrounds Coliseum $63M - Do Not Support
    Sorry, I would not fund any more projects for the fairgrounds. They can rename it back to the "Oklahoma City Fairgrounds" all they want. But they killed the experience of the fair yet are always coming to the city for capital funds for this or that. Why they refused to use revenue generated to maintain existing venues is beyond me, but to then ask for a new arena.

    Fairgrounds is a big generator for OKC and receives MOST of the Hotel-Motel tax. This and revenue from operations should be enough for the fairgrounds to run a top knotch operation. If they want an arena they should use bonding capacity of OKC and allow the hotel-motel tax to pay it off.

    Again, the fairground is not run by OKC or municipal operations (unlike the Cox and Chesapeake arena) - therefore, the fairgrounds should not be privy to every MAPS, Sorry no more pork-barrel here.

    * Diversion Hub $17M - full support.

    * Innovation District $71M - support but not the $21M endowment.
    Again, these are private businesses that want to receive a $21M endowment from the city. That should be the other way around, the city builds the capital expense for the district $50M and the ORMF creates the private endowment fund for operations. ...

    I support this at $50M only. I would support more if it included a much better connection/cap over I-235 but NOT for an endowment. ...

    * Freedom Center and Clara Luper Center $25M - support but not the endowment per se.
    Again, there are private organizations who will run these facilities and there likely will be an admissions fee charged. Therefore, not seeing why the city needs to build the buildings AND fund operations.

    Now, if we decide that these fine new facilities would become part of the parks department then perhaps an endowment might be a good idea since these are building specific uses and not just general fund operations/maintenance.

    I'd support this for $16M only.

    * Beautification $30M - full support.
    This is where I think we should easily double this to $60M. OKC is long far behind the curve on beautification as a city wide effort. I can't believe OKC doesn't even have a municipal position in charge of water and maintenance of plants/foliage.

    Since we're so behind I think this should be fully supported, even the $5M in operations since that would go to adding staff and not an endowment. Hopefully foliage selected is region appropriate since OKC does get enough rain, after the $5M emergency fund is consumed this should go to the parks department (who should create dedicated staff for this operation).

    * Multipurpose Stadium $37M - no support.
    I'm not against the stadium but I am against the current effort led by Funk. There's nothing concrete in their plan. They're looking to the city to bail them out, plain and simple. Also, the stadium is too small; $10K seats??? We already have larger than that with the bricktown ballpark, why not look to use it while OKC is in USL?

    I'd be in favor of this if there were a REAL effort to get OKC an MLS team, with Funk or whoever being owner and having funds for the fee/team, a location established/paid or at least conditionally agreed, and the stadium being no smaller than 25K seats. You can't have it both ways, either it's a Multipurpose stadium (therefore needing more than 20K seats for a city the size of OKC) or its a Soccer specific stadium built to soccer specifics 10K or whatever it is.

    Make up your minds here and come back later. Not fully against this but AM in its current edition.
    It blows my mind when people support upgrades to the Peake, but not a stadium. Make up your mind.

    Also, using Bricktown ballpark is a no go. There are multiple issues with using a baseball stadium for soccer. 1. The sightlines for anything but baseball are absolutely horrible. I've been to multiple Energy games in Tulsa, and it's not a pleasant viewing experience. The seats are either 30 yards from the field, in the corner where home plate should be, or behind the goal. 2. Not all baseball stadiums can fit regulation size soccer fields in them. Not sure if this applies to Bricktown however. 3. Baseball teams typically get priority when it comes to scheduling and field use. This season, the Energy had only 1 home game on a week night. This is important because obviously weeknight games get less attendance. Tulsa has 4 this season. I know in previous seasons, this was even worse for Tulsa. The Energy would be at the mercy of the baseball schedule.

  14. #39

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by mattyiceokc View Post
    It blows my mind when people support upgrades to the Peake, but not a stadium. Make up your mind.

    Also, using Bricktown ballpark is a no go. There are multiple issues with using a baseball stadium for soccer. 1. The sightlines for anything but baseball are absolutely horrible. I've been to multiple Energy games in Tulsa, and it's not a pleasant viewing experience. The seats are either 30 yards from the field, in the corner where home plate should be, or behind the goal. 2. Not all baseball stadiums can fit regulation size soccer fields in them. Not sure if this applies to Bricktown however. 3. Baseball teams typically get priority when it comes to scheduling and field use. This season, the Energy had only 1 home game on a week night. This is important because obviously weeknight games get less attendance. Tulsa has 4 this season. I know in previous seasons, this was even worse for Tulsa. The Energy would be at the mercy of the baseball schedule.
    Bob, is that you?

  15. #40

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by LocoAko View Post
    It is really.... interesting... to see the general response here versus the general response I've seen on other platforms. I've seen a ton of praise that it is a MAPS that [generally] focuses on citizens and the entire city, which is apparently what everyone outside of this forum wanted and was vocal about, versus big downtown civic projects. People actually seem really enthused that it addressed a number of social issues: homelessness, mental illness/addition, beautification/transit/sidewalks, etc. It doesn't have big sexy projects like the aquarium (which I agree is disappointing) but I think it addresses a number of key issues that desperately need addressing.

    If you think it was simply a pre-determined outcome (and I can see why some would), apparently it didn't include the entire council. At least JoBeth has already been outspoken on her page that she doesn't like how low it is aiming for many of the social services and apparently feels like the included programs started from a compromised position already.

    And simply LOL if you're waiting for the city to "lobby" this state's legislature to raise taxes instead of doing it this way. Good luck with that.......
    I don't really understand what JoBeth is saying. It's my understanding that many of the "chamber projects" had their budgets cut from their original ask, such as the soccer stadium, arena, Chesapeake, and Innovation Hub. All received substantially less than they originally asked for.

    Some of the "human needs" budgets were increased.

    Someone up thread posted a list of original budget requests and finals so I don't understand what she is saying. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point she is trying to make.

    I guess my question would be, if the negotiation for the human needs elements was too low, wasn't she one of the negotiators? I think the other thing that seems clear is that about two-thirds of this MAPS is going toward non-chamber stuff. That seems like a big win if you are aiming for human needs.

  16. #41

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by soonerguru View Post
    I don't really understand what JoBeth is saying. It's my understanding that many of the "chamber projects" had their budgets cut from their original ask, such as the soccer stadium, arena, Chesapeake, and Innovation Hub. All received substantially less than they originally asked for.

    Some of the "human needs" budgets were increased.

    Someone up thread posted a list of original budget requests and finals so I don't understand what she is saying. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point she is trying to make.

    I guess my question would be, if the negotiation for the human needs elements was too low, wasn't she one of the negotiators? I think the other thing that seems clear is that about two-thirds of this MAPS is going toward non-chamber stuff. That seems like a big win if you are aiming for human needs.
    Seems to me there are too many underfunded projects on the list that will be done 1/2 arsed. Should scrap some and do the rest properly. Do it right or don't do it at all.

  17. #42

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by OKCRT View Post
    Seems to me there are too many underfunded projects on the list that will be done 1/2 arsed. Should scrap some and do the rest properly. Do it right or don't do it at all.
    Respectfully, based on what? Is that just your gut feeling? We are building a new Palomar building. We are getting 500 bus shelters, etc. We are getting a new arena at the Fairgrounds. There are specific budgets for specific items. I'm not seeing the people associated with these individual projects complaining that they were shorted.

  18. #43

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Really torn on this.

    The hurdle for me is going to be the 8-year timeline and the $1B of investment. I will want to weigh if it's going to become more difficult to get the far NW and far SW OKC Voting block to agree to the RTA when they've already allocated 8 years of 1% to a MAPS they may view as not doing a lot for them, even if it is good for the city overall.

    Here is what I like about this iteration of MAPS:

    1. Most importantly, this shows that the city is committed to improving quality of life for the less fortunate and those who need/want to become more productive citizens.

    2. The CHK Arena upgrades should solidify the arena for another 15+ years, which should be sufficient time to guarantee Cox and REHCO sites do not become replacement sites for the Thunder's home.

    3. This does guarantee some funding for "passion projects" that I think will help retain many people currently aged 15 to 25.

    4. The endowment issue is an interesting one. I'm not necessarily convinced that it is the right choice from MAPS but I do like the out of the box thinking, and I also like believing that the city should not rely on wealthy donors to step up to the plate for these kinds of things. That being said, this obviously poses a new type of mismanagement and/or market risk and I think that has to be seriously considered.

  19. #44

    MAPS3 Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    MAPS 4: Eight year extension, 16 projects, $978 million initiative, everybody got something--a few received more, some less. This will strengthen Oklahoma City as a community, provide a catalyst for job growth--especially our Innovative Link.

    Endowments, if used wisely will keep these program & projects afloat and on track while they apply for more federal funds & grants during the interim.

    Concept of MAPS' were designed to address 8-10 year solutions. It has alternated from MAPS I (core) to MAPS II for KIDS (neighborhood & community schools), MAPS III back to more core and MAPS IV a combination of community & core projects with more emphasis on human needs.

  20. #45

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by soonerguru View Post
    Respectfully, based on what? Is that just your gut feeling? We are building a new Palomar building. We are getting 500 bus shelters, etc. We are getting a new arena at the Fairgrounds. There are specific budgets for specific items. I'm not seeing the people associated with these individual projects complaining that they were shorted.
    Just one example is the soccer stadium. Although I don't agree with building one if they are going to build it and spend 37 mil. that comes up way short IMO. Scrap it and put that money to better use. I mean if they are intent on building it lets do it first class.

  21. #46

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    In my opinion, 500 bus shelters is one of the most important items included. They can both provide critical shelter to those who rely on buses while at the the same time promoting bus use. As others have said, this should have been done with other city funds already, but I'd be glad to see it done with MAPS IV.

  22. #47

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Quote Originally Posted by OKCRT View Post
    Just one example is the soccer stadium. Although I don't agree with building one if they are going to build it and spend 37 mil. that comes up way short IMO. Scrap it and put that money to better use. I mean if they are intent on building it lets do it first class.
    As others have pointed out, it is way more than enough to build what they are discussing.

  23. #48

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    I'll vote yes, but I agree that much of this should have been done from a dedicated tax, not through MAPS. Basically, I agree with Ed that we should be increasing tax rate not misusing MAPS to create endowments that could very well be abused. I also agree we should do things like the soccer stadium right ($72 million) rather than take half measures. The same applies to the non-BRT BRT.

  24. #49

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Sixteen projects, $978 million initiative, MAPS IV covers more projects & funding than any previous penny sales tax initiative.

  25. #50

    Default Re: Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects

    Seems clear to me that the city leaders don’t have the political ability to get OKC voters to tax themselves for the things they need to fund through the general budget and standard sales tax. They must know OKC voters won’t agree to a permanent tax hike to fund the things that need to be funded. So instead of finding a permanent solution, they are hoping to use the MAPS brand to fund these things. I’m glad they are seeking to resolve some of these problems, but they are going about it the wrong way.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Full Moon
    By Rover in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 02-26-2019, 07:17 AM
  2. Full Cup
    By SoonerBeerMan in forum Edmond
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. New projects proposed for Oklahoma River/Stockyards
    By Patrick in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 07-14-2005, 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