The Truth Comes Out About MAPS 3
Mayor Mick Cornett came right out and said what a lot of people behind the scenes have known for weeks if not months – that a MAPS 3 ballot may be set for December and that in his words ”we” are looking at it including a new convention center Core to Shore and transit.
Oh really? What the KWTV report doesn’t mention, nor does the mayor, is who this famous “we” is. And there’s a reason for this – this we does not include a unanimous city council. It doesn’t include a unanimous civic and business leadership. And it certainly doesn’t involve any vote by any group or body.
To be honest, my numerous, numerous sources indicate that when it comes to what will be on a MAPS 3 ballot, the only concensus involves Mick Cornett and his assistant David Holt, who is dividing his time between city affairs and running for state senate.
A lof of downtown dreams, plans and ideas are in the balance here. And while Mayor Mick Cornett is a likable guy, someone who most agree has done a great job as a spokesman for the city, his vote at City Hall is one of nine. That’s it.
Get ready for some big discussions ahead. We’ve seen to date big pitches by advocates for a State Fair exhibition hall, a transit system, a convention center and tomorrow Bricktown begins to make its case for a canal extension. Still ahead – the river and the mayor’s own pitch for a central park and Core to Shore, a project that has plenty of people questioning whether it could do more harm than good to downtown.
In the old days these decisions were made behind closed doors and voters were simply told vote yes or else. Starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a different process emerged that involved concensus building and public discussions on how best to advance this city’s development. This process was credited for what we’ve seen to date – successful citywide bond issues upgrading infrastructure, parks and public safety; and the MAPS, Fix MAPS Right and MAPS for Kids ballots.
What process will see emerge with a MAPS 3? I’ll be asking tomorrow who this “we” is that has already decided on the basic MAPS 3 ballot and I’ll be interested in hearing from you, the readers, whether we’re following the pre-MAPS way of getting things done.
UPDATE: Mayor says the MAPS 3 ballot is not a done deal.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I understand the concerns of those who question if MAPS 3 is going in the right direction, but frankly it scares me more of what may happen if maps 3 isn’t passed. I have only lived in OKC for about 2 years and have grown to love this town, my wife and I take numerous drives around bricktown and downtown at night time just to enjoy the neat area. We attend a few events each year at the OK river and when family comes to town its absolutely wonderful to go to a thunder or redhawk game. We have come to love central OKC so much we are planning on buying a house in one of the older neighborhoods that is beginning to be revitalized and is just a stones throw away from the downtown area. I love the idea of a central park, think this town is long over due, I would love to be able to use a transit system when we go to either edmond or norman for something, and if a convention center would step up OKC, great. Mayor Mick has 5-6 months to tells us why his plan will work and sell the general public on MAPS 3. I wasn’t here for the original maps vote but heard that it narrowly passed and alot of people where very skeptical, but after seeing how well the city has progressed with all the sales tax initiatives, you can be sure my wife and I are voting yes for MAPS 3
Frankly, if the plan is for a convention center, central park, river development and transit I’ll be more than happy to vote yes. I don’t think that these projects will hurt the current hot spots at all. Our CBD/Bricktown/Midtown really isn’t that large of an area and I believe that they’ll continue to build a synergy and feed off of each other. This city misses the ball when it tries to force things. I feel that these possible MAPS3 projects are actually rational “next step” ideas that excite me and my fellow 20 somethings. Nothing apart from planting money trees in Midtown/the Triangle/Arts District etc. is going to make them any more “complete”. Presently, they are not complete, but only in terms of conceptual ideals. They are what they are right now and if people could accept that and deal with them existentially they would have no choice but to grow and deepen if you will. Transit/Central Park/Canal Extension/River Developments/Convention Center/The Triangle/Midtown Redev/AA/The Arts District are all great ideas and are all worthy of our attention. However, money can only do so much. The people of Oklahoma City have to make cultural adjustments to fulfill and flesh out these projects. I’m a musician. I don’t “act” like a musician…I’m a musician. That’s how I live and put food on the table. I went to Deadcenter and had a blast. Outside of this blog I didn’t see much media coverage of the event. In LA there would’ve been a whole lot more. It was an A+ event! Maybe not enough people are interested in such things and that’s why our media doesn’t do a very good job covering these projects. There is a big difference between pointing at a rendering and going “ooh that’s gonna be neat” and actually investing time and treasure into the tangible assets that are already present. It’s different. One means everything and the other means nothing. People. It’s all about people. We do not have a critical mass of the type of persons who want to live a TRUE urban lifestyle in this area. They must be attracted. We’ll do that when our civic culture changes. Our perceived moral attitude and personal activity level must change. It’ll happen over time but not a minute before it does. Let’s stop blaming everything on easements and storefronts and vacancy rates. Anyone who wants to move downtown and can afford it does so. Don’t give me the “boo hoo, I’m priced out” crap. There are places to live. Gotta wonder if we reeeaallyy want what we’re demanding. It’s funny like the people who want Bricktown to look like a lifestyle center. IN A DOWNTOWN!? Ha ha! Was never going to happena and shouldn’t have happened. Go to NYC or Chicago and look at the things that stand side by side. You’d be surprised. Let the city do the big things and let the people fill in the gaps. Let the city supply the ink and paper and we’ll write the story. Just make sure the story doesn’t contain a chapter about Oklahoma City dropping the ball in the name of righteousness.
Clay – the MAPS ballot items must be voted on by City Council first, so yes, there will be debate. Also, each item will then be voted on separately by the voters, so there is a chance some items could go and others won’t – just like our Bond Issue votes.
Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the vote up or down for everything? Which would mean the City Council debate will be critical to determine what actually goes onto the ballot. But time (especially available council meetings before the ballot is finalized) is surely getting very short……
Here’s what’s required by law: any member of the council, including the mayor, can submit a ballot to city staff to write up and then place on the council agenda to be voted on by the city council. If a majority of the council approves the ballot, then the ballot is submitted to voters. In the past, the MAPS ballots have consisted on a “all or nothing” approach.
Another key: the city cannot conduct a campaign – that task is typically taken on by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.
What I’m questioning is when the mayor refers to a “we” having already decided the ballot will include a convention center, central park and transit, who is that “we”?
Steve, do you have a link with the exact quote you have Mayor Cornett saying? The only one I could find on KWTV attributed to him recently regarding MAPS 3 and a new convention center, Core to Shore and transit was: “I think there will be other ideas attached to it, but those are the three ideas that we think will continue the city’s momentum and will continue to make this a city where people want to be.” This was in http://www.kwtv.com/global/story.asp?s=10628903.
I think it is important to get the exact nuance and statement right here, as to me this quote is a lot more diplomatic and open to other ideas than the one attributed to him in the post. It sounds to me like the main points/ideas are out there and few of us are surprised at them, but “we” still have the opportunity to add further ideas and shape the MAPS 3 proposal. I want to make sure we are directing any furor, if appropriate, in the right direction as to go on a cabal and witch-hunt for a “we” statement that may not be important may waste our time and energy for no reason. I think to hold him accountable for a possible pronoun mistake is not really appropriate, unless there is further evidence he has rammed this down the council’s throat.
That’s the quote. While I understand what you’re saying, this quote still indicates they’ve settled on these three proposals. Now the question is, who is “we”? From what I’ve seen and heard, this was no pronoun mistake, though if he says so today, so be it. From the various conversations I’ve had, there is NO concensus on the council yet.
This should come as a surprise to no one. The Mayor has been consistent in this message for almost a year now.
I do believe that some of the projects will be presented under a general (vague) category, such as “river developments,” and “downtown transit component.”
Other than that, recession or no recession, the whole package only needs 50.1 percent of the vote, and people feel good about what’s happening in OKC.
I do believe that this is the last MAPS initiative that is OKC only. The next one will likely involve other communities.
Fair enough Steve. I would then just throw out there: how important is it that the there is a unanimous consensus on the city council? It is highly unlikely that on such a complex concept we will get all members to be in agreement, let alone every civic and business leader in the city. If there has been an appropriate opportunity for other council members (but more importantly to me…the public) to have input and discussion and they still do not agree, the process is there to vote “yea” or “nay.” And if approved by the council, the public has the opportunity to vote as well. Additionally, further council members can bring their own proposals to the table and if only Mayor Cornett has taken such initiative, kudos to him.
All the polls and studies say OKC wants another MAPS proposal, so that ship appears to have sailed. If other city or council members want a different proposal than Cornett’s vision I would posit that they should bring such a proposal to the table and we can debate the merits. If their argument is that there should not be another MAPS, so be it, the public will then decide on Cornett’s vision…hopefully, with many of the concerns that have been brought up in this blog over the last couple weeks and more. Additionally, hopefully they will go on the record with their concerns as there are too many private interests people may be protecting to hide behind a vague “I don’t like the Mayor’s proposal” from anonymous sources. This is good stuff Steve, keep it up.
Mayor Mick was a phone guest on KFOR’s morning news today, and besides mentioning Central Park and Convention Center, he also mentioned the words “transit” and “streetcar”.
I can’t say what I know, but I will say, you’ve got about 1 week to make your voice known. Please get loud and active towards City Hall, your CouncilPerson and Mayor Cornett.
Steven, why can’t you say what you know? This discussion is about how to NOT keep things secretive and non-transparent.
How could you not vote yes? I have seen what sitting around and doing nothing does. While I agree that Jeff Speck is right about making our city more walkable and urban, he has his opinion. I have learned in architecture and urban design that there is no one way to do things. There are many different solutions and I say lay the groundwork for the future. Get the park started. Stop comparing us with Dallas. I want to start comparing us with Austin, it is a much better city anyway, and more our size. Keep developing the river and get a park going, and then maybe we can have some really big festivals. Maybe our city can be really cool. More of a destination spot…just my opinion.
Kris, and Steven, with all due respect, you don’t know if it’s a week or not. Not even the council, chamber or anybody else in town has a firm grip on this thing. Brent, you’re right – people who disagree with the mayor’s vision of what a MAPS 3 ballot should be need to start coming out. I’ll do my part to make that happen.
I feel like a shadow is being cast accross a good thing for Oklahoma City in this post. Granted, the level of transparency that is present at the City Council is a nice improvement from the past, but arent’ we making apples out of oranges here? There are times when a quote can be taken the wrong way, and in my opinion, I believe that is what’s happened here.
The bottom line is that the MAPS program has done a huge amount of good for the city. The program recognized the potential of the Bricktown area when there was no potential to be seen. Concerning future potential, I believe it lies in the Oklahoma River. There is no larger source of untapped possibility than the river. Just imagine if the setting of Bricktown expanded to include, and was complimented by a beautiful River district? Not only would this beautify the city, but it would attract the sort of national recognition, in both the commercial and industrial scenes, OKC seems to be searching for.
All that said, and no personal offense meant to you here Steve, it seems like this post is looking to create controversey instead of finding it. As a longtime citizen of OKC, I believe MAPS III to be a worthy project, and I know many other citizens believe the same thing.
I’m not trying to create controversy. But the definition of “MAPS 3″ is very much a matter of debate without me saying a single word. Now, I could stay quiet and not let anyone know what’s going on behind all those closed doors.
But that’s not my style. And if you believe the river is going to the centerpiece of the MAPS 3 ballot, don’t be so certain…
I’m doing my best to tell all of you what’s going on. And yes, I may be upsetting someone’s bluff or forcing something to be discussed that otherwise might have been swept under a carpet.
It’s my job. Do I love my city? Heck yeah. I make no pretense otherwise. But when people go in assuming that Core to Shore is an obvious win for the city when experts say otherwise, I’m going to ask questions. When people go in assuming a new convention center must be built south of the arena when the experts say otherwise, I’m going to ask questions. When the mayor says that the ballot is not a done deal, that there will be an open discussion as to what gets done as part of MAPS 3, but then we hear it might be otherwise, yes, I’m going to ask questions.
It’s my job Chris. This isn’t about trying to sink MAPS 3. It’s about asking questions aimed at insuring residents know exactly what’s at stake and maybe the best decisions will result from such discussions.
My hero, the late Mary Jo Nelson, asked similarly unpopular questions when the city was diving into Urban Renewal. The experts were insisting that downtown malls were, for the most part, not going to work. The experts warned not to rip out downtown Oklahoma City’s Main Street to make way for a Galleria mall.
Mary Jo did her best to ask questions then, just as I’m doing now. But this city’s leadership at the time didn’t want to answer those questions.
I can’t force anyone to answer my questions. But like Mary Jo, I won’t quit asking them.
Steve, I applaud you for doing a great job. I’ve read many of your articles about OKC and I appreciate the love you have for ths city, as well as the great service you provide. However, I’m not going to get in a debate as to what constitutes “honorable” journalism.
I have to say, that based on the quote you provided, you are providing doubt without any substance. From what your readers can tell, your “thesis statement,” (for lack of a better term), is based off an interpretation of the word “we.” I’m sorry, but that’s not enough for me to doubt the potential of the Oklahoma River. No, I don’t have any facts to back this up, but I know the type of OKC want to build, and the Oklahoma River is a major part. At this point and time, I’m sorry, but I can’t follow you in your doubts unless something more substantial is presented.
I believe the Oklahoma City River is a great thing to invest in and a way to unlock a much better, expanded future for the city. It has a great chance to become what many other developments could not. It has a chance to be truly unique, that’s all I’m saying.
Chris, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’ve not questioned the value of the river at all. I can tell you that the mayor is not talking about the river being a part of the MAPS 3 ballot. Time and again he’s indicating that the likely items will be Core to Shore, a convention center and transit.
I can also tell you that people are being told that these are the items that the “city leadership” have already settled on. And that’s where I start questioning the “we.” Because truth be told, from what I’ve been able to learn, there isn’t a much of a “we” on anything right now.
And that’s what I’m trying to tell you now – and I’m also questioning how this “we” might end up being imposed.
I don’t have doubts about this concensus. I know there isn’t a concensus and that’s what I’m reporting to you.
I’ve been in this position before. I recall very vividly being ridiculed and dismissed as I began reporting that significant problems were being encounted during construction of the downtown library. It took a year before the city finally agreed there was a problem, a lawsuit was filed, and the dispute over construction flaws continued until about two weeks ago.
I’m not here to be honorable – I’m here to make sure questions are asked, encourage discussions about our future, and do my best to inform the readers.
As for questions about Core to Shore, I would encourage you to read the Jeff Speck report at http://www.okc.gov.
Steve
Noticed you skipped my comment, that’ OK, no hurt feelings. I appreciate Jeff Speck’s report and no doubt, he makes all kinds of great points. However, in architecture and urban design there is no “one” solution. There are many solutions, that is why there are competitions and everyone brings in a different idea. I have a friend that I went to school with at OU who went on to get his Masters of Urban Design at Columbia. He doesn’t have the credentials that Speck has but I would say he was the most talented of our bunch back at school. He believes Core 2 Shore has to happen and it would be great thing for the city. I would become more of a place than a space.
As for comparing us to Dallas, I am done with it. We aren’t Dallas and hopefully we never will be. Let’s go the route of Austin and grow downtown and create different venues. It is vibrant and beautiful and maybe OKC can get there.
Steve, enjoy your work a lot and I applaud your passion for the city. Wish there was more people like us on this blog in the city. Always look forward to your columns on Tuesday…
How about rephrasing the fundamental question Steve raised here and which still needs to be answered: If projects aren’t off the table then where is the “table” and who is sitting at it? Who will do the triage?
Whoever “Chris” is, he must not have been old enough to see Bricktown before MAPS. All it had going for it was “potential”. Bricktown had dreams of being a version of West End BEFORE MAPS and now is even better BECAUSE of MAPS. It drive me crazy when young people act like they know what our City was like when they were in Junior High.
Well, I think I am reasonably convinced now that Mayor Cornett had no nefarious purpose in using the term “we.” As Mark also seemed to say, the next step is finding out which council members are on board with the current plan and which aren’t and for what reason. Do they have any alternatives or are they just against continuing the MAPS tax (to allow other areas to grow, to save the cost of the tax…perhaps something else)?
Personally, I don’t care where or from whom a good idea comes from, if that person is 85 or 25, it does not matter to me. Being a naturalized Oklahoman myself of about a decade now, I may not have been around during the first MAPS vote either (although my wife was) but I have done everything I can to get up to speed on the history of our city/state and I can say that this is an exciting time and place to be and look forward to what this city has in its future.
In my opinion, I hope Steve keeps asking the tough questions of everyone, as I’m sure he will, it’s his job. Of course, the tenor and tone of questions is important, but that is hard to convey in print. I don’t think anyone can dispute the fact Steve wants what is best for OKC. We can only get the best result for our city after we examine multiple points of view and discuss many of the possible issues that can arise from another MAPS program. Nothing is a sure thing and another MAPS program isn’t either. But I’m confident that we can get the best ballot possible as long as we don’t stop asking tough questions of everyone, include Mayor Mick. As far as I’m concerned, these have been some great blogs and comments recently. No matter what side you are defending, many of you have some great things to say and I usually look forward to reading them. Thanks for providing this outlet Steve.
Steve:
Understand the Mayor says that MAPS 3 is not a “done deal” that anything can still be “on the table”.
But why? What I mean by that, is we were supposed to have voted on MAPS 3 sometime in 2008. The Ford tax increase bought them some time to get everything nailed down (15 months) but the Mayor is sounding like MAPS 3 is still in the planning stages with no firm decisions being made at all. Even with the Core to Shore, new convention center and mass transit are often listed, they still often use disclaimers (”likely to be included”, etc.) Someone has been talking about MAPS 3 for years now.
In order for the City to make the same misleading claim that these projects can be done without raising taxes, it will have to go into effect before the current Ford tax expires. (Every MAPS tax, was a new tax and therefor a tax increase). Time is running out for that to happen (especially if what the Mayor is saying now about it not being a done deal etc.)
“We” is Bennett, McClendon, Nichols, Humphreys, and Cornett (apologies on any name misspellings there). In fact, I’m guessing Cornett just basically does what he is told as opposed to coming up with his own ideas. He’s simply the newscaster face for the corporate regime that is running the show.
If this is how the issues on the ballot are going to be decided, I’m prepared to vote “NO.” We should be given a list of projects and allowed to vote on them individually. The $ attached to the projects that pass would determine the length of the sales tax.