David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot
Many people might forget that the original MAPS ballot – a list of items to be paid by the tax but with just a “yes for all” or “no for all” vote might be difficult to exactly duplicate today due to a court ruling that came out against such ballots a few years ago.
David Holt, assistant to Mayor Mick Cornett, reports the following regarding a potential MAPS 3 ballot:
“Legal interpretations of what an Oklahoma ballot should look like have evolved since the original MAPS vote in 1993. Should the Mayor and Council move forward with a MAPS 3 proposal, the process will certainly conform to the operative law, and the City’s legal office will be exploring those issues as appropriate. It would be our intention to stay close to the basic model the voters have shown themselves to be comfortable with.”
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
The earlier court ruling really isn’t that much of an impediment to the process as there are certainly ways to word the proposal to conform to the ruling. I’m fine with an up or down vote on the whole proposition. A lot of the items are intertwined and wouldn’t make sense if you just left off a piece here or there. For example, say both the central park and convention center proposals get knocked down, but the streetcar and canal extension proposals are passed (assuming all these are included). Seems like it would be pretty odd to have a streetcar and canal extension into an industrial zone. Although if that darn state fair exhibition hall proposal gets added to MAPS 3 I may just change my mind.
Brent – the streetcar would likely be a general description so that specifics of location could be determined once funding is in place.
in all likelihood, the library and the canal would NOT have been approved in MAPS if voted on separately. the civic center would have been iffy. i remember the mood of the city at the time, and it was the “all or nothing” approach that worked. frankly, many people believed that we were in such desparate shape that it was worth the risk to “bet the farm”. at the time we did it, it was revolutionary.
maybe that approach isn’t necessary given the evolution that has taken place, but i’m not so sure. frankly, i remember the words of stanley draper. “dream no small dreams. dream big dreams, and work like the devil to make them happen.” i don’t think it is any coincidence that the decline of oklahoma city came after the death of draper. he had the confidence of the city’s big men to get them behind his projects. such an approach is all but impossible today. legal changes, societal changes, and a lack of local capital make MAPS the only real workable model.
for what it’s worth, i think it’s more important that we put together an outstanding proposal than it is to time the election so that the penny doesn’t lapse. if people see the need/benefit, they will vote for it. if they don’t, they won’t. that’s my message for city hall.
I’m in favor of voting on each item individually. It will ensure that what’s ultimately included is supported by the citizens and places the burden of proof on city leaders to demonstrate how each item will benefit the city in terms of economics and quality of life.
I can see a lot of people voting “nay” to the whole thing if there are one or two items that don’t make sense to them as citizens.