Downtown OKC 2020: Blair Humphreys
Today’s guest blogger is Blair Humphreys, who with a masters in planning from MIT in hand, has done more to influence how I look at urban planning than anyone else I know this past year or so. I’ve already introduced him to you via yesterday’s post. After some more editing and discussion, we both agreed to hit you with his entire post all at once. It’s long, but it’s worth reading:
I want to start by thanking Steve for the opportunity to borrow his audience and offer up my thoughts on the future of Oklahoma City. While he asked for my thoughts on Downtown in 2020, my writing considers the city as a whole. I hope it is a worthy contribution to what has already been a very interesting discussion.
Introduction
My own history with the city is something of a love affair. I grew up near 44th and Portland, and spent my first 18 years circling this location in ever growing loops as my mode of transportation allowed. I attended Putnam City Schools and played uncountable rounds of golf at Hefner. A normal childhood is a spectacular thing unto itself. I spent the next four years on the southern edge of the metro in Norman: watching football, getting a business degree, and somehow catching the attention of the girl of my dreams. After graduating from OU and getting married, my wife Maggie and I were excited to call Crown Heights home and enjoyed walking down 42nd Street to the burgeoning scene on Western, and living in the middle of a new area and in a post-MAPS version of Oklahoma City that was excitingly different then that of my childhood.
Looking back, my Dad’s years as Mayor, which began during my “formative years” starting with my freshman year at Putnam City, had a special effect on my life and career. It was during his tenure that I gained my first insights into all the work that goes into and all the people involved in, shaping the future of the city. Mayor Norick left a legacy with MAPS, demonstrating what was possible when the city pulled together to solve problems. I remember the excitement of attending games at the new ball park and the enthusiastic celebration surrounding the ribbon cutting for the Bricktown Canal.
Still, it wasn’t until some years later that the power of these experiences became clear. Throughout college all I wanted was to be a real estate developer. I wanted the life, the money; I admired Donald Trump. I even stood in the freezing cold for hours in order to tryout for Apprentice. Then, thankfully, this all started to change. My bookshelf of Trump books and get rich in real estate guides gave way to urban planning classics (Death and Life of Great American Cities being my favorite), books on New Urbanism, and a growing collection of research on the history of Oklahoma City. Soon, so much of my thinking was focused on Oklahoma City: what it was, what it had been, and where it was going. I couldn’t focus on a single development project, because I was more concerned with how to make the whole city better. I wanted to recapture the vitality and spirit that I felt had been buried beneath the rubble of the wrecking ball and to rebuild the city into something it was always destined to become – a great city and a great place to live!
So, after two years living my “dream” as a real estate developer, I decided to pursue my new dream: to contribute to shaping the future and improving life in Oklahoma City. It seemed the best place to do this was as a Planner, so I resigned my developer position to accept an internship at the City Planning Department. Under the tutelage of Russell Claus, I had the great pleasure of assisting during the early efforts and planning of Core to Shore. And since then, I have spent the last two years earning a Masters in City Planning degree, with a focus on urban design, and am now eager to get back to Oklahoma City and contribute to making it great however I can. I tell you my story, only to let you know that I love Oklahoma City, I am passionate about the city, its people, and the built environment that defines our experience. I think Oklahoma City has incredible people and I think they deserve an incredible city. Oklahoma City today is wonderful, especially when compared to the city of 15 years ago, but now we must ask what should be done so that the same statement is true 15 years hence.
THE POWER OF ENGAGED CITIZENRY
As I consider what Oklahoma City should be in 2020, I have interestingly become fixated on a story that took place almost seventy years ago. Further, the story didn’t take place in Oklahoma City, but in a city very much unlike our own – New York City. However, while the era and the city may be different, in this case the story demonstrates what I believe to be one of the enduring principles of what it takes to make a great city. That is, a great city is the cumulative legacy of extraordinary contributions made by its citizens. I came upon the story in the course of my summer reading. After graduating in May I decided to make a second attempt at reading Robert A. Caro’s biography on Robert Moses – an 1162 page “modern classic” called The Power Broker. The book, a winner of both the Pulitzer and the Francis Parkman prizes, is an incredible study on not just the life of Robert Moses, a city builder who shaped the future of New York City for over half a century, but also on the history of American cities in general. It provides glimpses of what happens behind the scenes of some of America’s greatest public works and offers insights into how city building actually happens.
Robert Moses looks at a model of his proposed Brooklyn Battery Bridge.
The story begins in the late 1930s. It was generally agreed that something had to be done to ease the flow of traffic between Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. Robert Moses, who had spent the previous decades building up an empire of power, attempted to use his position of influence to push through his vision for a new Brooklyn-Battery Bridge. The bridge would be another of his great public works whose image would provide a lasting legacy of his reign. Unfortunately, for such a bridge to be constructed, the city’s beloved Battery Park and the historic Fort Clinton would be bisected by towering bridge supports and access ramps. Many citizens, among them many respected leaders and longtime civic reformers, opposed the immediate construction of the bridge because of the potential negative impact it would have on the waterfront and Battery Park. However, while this result seemed far from ideal, Moses remained committed to the bridge. It was no longer a question of what was best for the city, but a game of power and ego. And it appeared as though Moses was winning the game.
The importance of a thoughtful consideration of alternatives
That changed however as a group of concerned citizens stepped forward and became involved. Initially, they were not against Moses or against progress in the form of Bridges. They simply questioned why the matter could not be studied further to ensure that the best solution was found and that no irreversible mistakes were made. Moses attempted to sway opinion, stating that not only was his bridge the best solution, but if they did not proceed with the bridge immediately the traffic problem would never be solved and the city would suffer a setback. But the citizens pointed out that other solutions – solutions which might offer better results overall – did in fact exist and were not receiving adequate consideration. One solution was a tunnel that would pass under the park, would not diminish waterfront views, and could be constructed for less than Moses was stating publicly. The citizens asked why these other solutions should not be further analyzed. Caro says:
“The [citizens] were also hopeful because their aim was modest. They were not, after all, insisting that the bridge proposal be defeated. They were only asking that it be studied. With three competing plans for a solution to Lower Manhattan’s traffic problem – and wildly conflicting estimates of the cost and effects of each plan – surely an impartial study was needed to determine the true costs and effects before a decision was made. Moses was insisting on the need for haste, they said, but wasn’t the need really for delay, a delay which would provide time for mature consideration? The decision the city took on the proposals would vitally affect it for decades – centuries perhaps. Was it not only rational to take a few more weeks or months to make sure the decision taken was the right one?”
The Herald Tribune offers this pointed argument as to the value of delay:
“It seems clear now that a major alteration in the city’s design and appearance is involved. No conceivable need for hurry has been suggested. The need is therefore for the carefulest consideration and full public discussion, with every opportunity for alternatives to be review impartially and thoroughly. No possible risk should be run of building in haste and repenting for generations to come.”
Moses would not budge, however, and it became clear to the citizens that their only chance was to perform their own analysis and demonstrate which solution was truly in the best interest of the city.
What it takes to be truly engaged
The group of citizens that joined together to oppose the immediate construction of the bridge put on a clinic on what it means to be an engaged citizen. Presenting in front of the City Council, as they were set to vote on the matter, the citizens offered up the following:
- “Major Henry J. Amy, executive director of the Citizens Budget Commission, analyzed Moses’ contention that the bridge and its approaches ‘wouldn’t cost the city a nickel’”, and effectively refuted them, identifying the actual costs, and showing the city would have to pay $11 million.
- A real estate expert documented “block by block” the buildings and real estate that would be affected by the bridge and showed that the reduction in property tax revenue was not be reported as a cost of the bridge solution.
- Regional Plan Association experts showed that “everything Moses hoped to achieve by building a new bridge could be achieved – at a small fraction of the construction cost and real estate tax loss – by their alternate plan.”
- The citizens even delved into some of Moses’ baseline assumptions, showing many to be skewed or completely untrue.
Caro states that by the end of the citizen’s presentation “every Moses contention subject to factual analysis had been utterly demolished.” My search of our city’s history shows that have been very few occasions when Oklahoma City’s citizens have taken an active interest in making sure major public works plans were thoroughly analyzed, alternative options explored and the best course was chosen. Whether we are talking about the planning failures of our City’s founding on April 22, 1889, or the continued embarrassment of a not-so-’Grand Boulevard’ started in 1909. Or how about the still demoralizing effects of a 1960s vision that took, forever, so much of our history and density while often only giving back a surface parking lot in its stead. Whether or not you believe these to indeed be failures, or merely minor blips in the course of our city’s growth, it seems fair to conclude that we could have done better had concerned citizens put forth an effort similar to what was offered by those of NYC seventy years ago.
While the citizens’ presentation should have put an end to the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge debate, it unfortunately did not. Despite the amazing effort put forth by the citizens of New York, the political arena does not appreciate an uninvited guest. Moses may have lost the debate, but he won the council vote by pulling strings behind the scenes. Thankfully, however, the citizens’ efforts were finally rewarded when the President himself, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, became involved in the matter and, due in part to the strength of the citizens’ arguments, kept the bridge from obtaining what was typically routine federal approval. Thus, the tunnel was built instead of the bridge; the park, historic fort, and beautiful views of the harbor were saved; and the city was seemingly far better off as a result of engaged citizens who sought a thorough analysis of alternative solutions.
The Esplanade in Battery Park, New York City.
The power of defining the debate
One other important consideration identified by citizens during the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge debate is the questionable premises on which the debate itself was founded. It was generally agreed that traffic was an issue, but there were many other problems on which people might generally agree and yet here the citizens were only given the opportunity to debate between spending millions on a bridge or spending millions on a tunnel because Moses was able to define the debate itself:
The insistence that [Moses'] proposals be viewed only in isolation, that each be viewed strictly as an attempt to solve a particular, limited problem by creating a particular structure of concrete and steel, that it not be evaluated in terms of the needs of the city as a whole (the need for a bridge, for example, weighed against the need for schools and hospitals) or even as part of the larger problem of which the specific problem was only a part (a traffic-moving machine like a bridge evaluated in terms of the city’s over-all traffic-moving problem) and especially not in terms of its impact on the surrounding neighborhood – was the same insistence that had underlain the public works he had been building for the city for…years.”
As we assess whether or not to pursue certain public works over the next few years, the debate should be about what will do the most to improve the quality of life for all Oklahoma City citizens.
“The debate should be about what will do the most to improve the quality of life for all Oklahoma City citizens.”
At its core this is about prioritizing our goals as a city and making sure our resources are utilized in a manner consistent with these priorities. The city budget, a record of our spending, is one indication of the city’s actual priorities. We should view it as such, and be quick to point out when it is not in line with the goals of the citizens.
Lower Bricktown, 1998, shortly after the opening of the Bricktown Ballpark and before the opening of the Bricktown Canal.
On another level, this is not only about how money is spent, but also how we go about locating and implementing projects. For instance, an example from history, when choosing to build a new ball park, we didn’t ask, “What is the ideal place for a ball park?” rather we ventured, “What ball park location does the most to enhance the city as a whole?”. Only by asking the right question did we get the right answer. A new ball park at the fairgrounds would have been more accessible and provided plenty of free parking, but it would not have created the tremendous amount of surrounding benefit provided by the Bricktown location.
Conclusion
As you can see, the power of engaged citizenry cannot be underestimated and it is my hope that Oklahoma City in 2020 will have made great strides in this regard. Engaged citizens are necessary if we are to ensure that the city stays on course and that the values and priorities of the leadership reflect those of the city itself. This has not always been the case in Oklahoma City. Our history suggest that some of our biggest mistakes are made when too few people are involved in the decision making process.
We should not discount the value of a few good questions. While some might try to equate well-intentioned questions with ill-intentioned interference, the truth is that active questioning is a very good thing. It is an indication of a thoughtful discourse, results in a more thorough analysis, and is integral to a healthy democratic process. Not only should we ask questions, but we should expect our leaders to answer the questions and answer them directly. If an idea cannot stand up to legitimate questioning, then it is an idea unworthy of our consideration.
While there is a burden on the citizens of Oklahoma City to step up and become involved, there is a greater burden on the elected and non-elected leadership of the city to provide opportunities for involvement. It is important that we create a culture of collaboration that encourages citizens to take part in a healthy debate in search of the best ideas, rather than allow ourselves to fall prey to a climate of controlled information and “go along if you want to get along” intimidation. Such a climate is rarely the origin of great ideas and provides a direct route to lowest common denominator thinking. I am weary of anyone that would question the purity of a citizen’s motivation simply because they disagree on an issue. While it is impossible to know the heart of a person, simply the act of questioning demonstrates an interest and commitment to the city that is worthy of our respect.
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
Thanks Dad – Welcome to the blogosphere!
Appreciate it Brian. Hmm…I am looking for a job. Only kidding…
Cliff – thanks. I was hoping my post would inspire people to ask questions.
Me and my clansmen solute you!
By the way, just to address your question directly.
Humphreys Company, which is managed by my dad and brother Grant, has invested in Oklahoma City, primarily at the old Downtown Airpark property on the Oklahoma River just west of Western. The development will certainly be helped by Oklahoma City’s growth and prosperity. We don’t, however, own any property in the Core to Shore area.
Hope that answers your question. And hope you actually took time to read the post.
Frankly, Cliff, I hope it involves lots of zeros and an implied + sign at the front of the number. However, I can say with first-hand knowledge of each member of what you’ve dubbed the “Humphreys Clan” that their motives, while not exclusive of an intent to prosper, transcend that of the almighty dollar.
Blair, I appreciate your insight, and the spirit behind your closing paragraph. ‘Looking forward to our dialogue in October and beyond.
Great post, Blair. Questioning is a sign of a big league city; it means that different perspectives coexist within it and that people are smart and invested enough not to buy everything they hear.
As always, Blair, I know more and think better after reading something that you have written.
It is difficult if not impossible to know whether the kernel of your thought has been, is being, or will be taken to heart in the immediate proposal that we are about to have laid before us which I gather is altogether put together by this point.
Some very good questions have been stated in this series for which Steve provided a home, and I hope that someone up there (heaven, I do not mean) has been reading … listening … and thinking.
Blair
So, what are our questions? What will be on MAPS3 and how did the city leaders decide on putting each item on the ballot? How will the city develop core to shore? What land are they wanting to make public park? Are they going to use the plan that is already out there, or are they going to use a more realistic organic plan? Where is the convention center going to go? How are they going to look out for the existing buildings? What mass transit do we invest in?
Just to start asking questions?
Thank you for a very interesting piece, the length of which seemed very reasonable, considering the information delivered.
If MAPS3 passes, there will be many decisions made in the ensuing years that will dramatically affect downtown. I think most of us were pretty vague about what was going to happen with the original MAPS. We knew there would be a ballpark, and we knew we would get a new arena, but frankly, I rarely went downtown and had only a vague notion of where everything would be located, and how that would affect my use of downtown.
Now, however, I’m a regular frequenter of many of the areas revitalized by MAPS, and that makes me far more interested in precisely what is going to be done if MAPS3 passes. I want to talk about the park and where the convention center will be located. I’m interested in what type of mass transit will be on the ballet, and any potential routes. So, I ask: How does an interested citizen impact the planning process? Are there existing citizens groups that will be allowed the opportunity to have their voices heard?
Steve, I figured I pushed my luck with the length of the post and should try to keep my mouth shut so others could talk.
But if you insist…
You all have asked a number of good questions given where we are as a city and the importance of how we take our next steps. I think the foundational nature of the questions being asked demonstrates how insufficient the discourse and public process has been to this point.
I would especially like to respond to Jill’s comments. If you have been reading in weeks past, then you know that Jill is an enthusiastic supporter of Oklahoma City and MAPS 3. I think her comments highlight the fact that as we grow in our enthusiasm for the city we also grow in our need to be informed, involved, and feel a part of the decision-making process. We must provides outlets for citizens to channel their passions and energy in ways that contribute to making Oklahoma City great!
We are definitely not there yet, but I certainly hope we will get there by 2020. And, perhaps, it is not too much to hope that after we pass MAPS 3 – and we should pass MAPS 3 – citizens will be given a chance to question premises, remake plans, and offer meaningful input on the details of its expenditure.
Blair,
You do an excellent job of framing the subject… and of framing the frame. Obviously, you are a thorough thinker, and appear to have many of the skills necessary to become a successful politician, including dancing all around the subject without answering the question! It would be nice to see a bit more of your vision within all the frames (unless “engaged citizenry” IS your vision of OKC in 2020, which I suppose is a worthy enough subject… However, it would be nice for you to cut to the chase, and give us some specifics)!
It appears that the citizenry doesn’t have much time to engage, even if we figure out how to do it.
Dennis-
I honestly believe that one of the most important characteristics of a great city is a framework that provides for engaged citizens and a meaningful public process. Of course I have specific ideas of my own, but what good are they if there is not a process by which the ideas can be vetted and democratically selected. Thus, I decided to focus my post on what I saw as the core issue we face as a city.
I would love to grab coffee sometime and fill an afternoon discussing all of our hopes and dreams for the city…in great detail. And who knows, maybe if the “climate” around town loosens up a bit, I will be comfortable sharing more here or on my own blog.
After thinking about this for an evening I don’t really have an issue with Blair’s post. An engaged citizenry is very important and necessary for the health of the city. However, to play devil’s advocate for a moment in the context of MAPS3, I’m not sure what we may have been looking for through a more open or different process. What would have been changed from the proposal that will likely be presented shortly? What other proposal alternatives are out there? Unlike the NY bridge, there seems to be no alternatives that have been seriously proposed for MAPS3 other than minor alterations (move the convention center, slightly bigger park, etc.) or just arguments against MAPS3 altogether. These minor changes seem to be things that can still be discussed after the proposal is unveiled and even possibly after it is voted upon. Personally I do not have too many issues with the proposal we are likely to see, but I would have preferred to see some true alternatives thrown on the wall. As an example of another project, how about a world-class Oklahoma City Aquarium along the shores of our Oklahoma River and grand Central Park? I would love some other alternatives.
I would have liked to see the hoped for town hall meetings, more use of the MAPS3 website, citizen MAPS3 committees and more, however, there seems to be no real groundswell arising from the citizenry. There have been few people taking the opportunity to speak before the city council, no mass “letters to the editor” campaigns, petitions, etc. Just because the mayor’s office and city council did not hold our hands and provide the opportunity, it does not mean there are no alternatives already available to the citizenry. Every time I have contacted the mayor’s/council’s offices the concern was at least acknowledged. Unfortunately I can’t really expect them to respond to every citizens’ issues with all projects. So absent any true dissent, in our representative form of government I can not take much issue with the way things have been done to date as far as MAPS3 goes. With all that said, I still don’t have any issues with Blair’s post and we definately need to take every opportunity (whether it already exits or it is created) to make our voices heard both now and in the future.
Good thoughts Brent! We might disagree a bit on whether the existing public process is sufficient for the type of city we want to be in 2020. I agree though, more alternatives and an opportunity to analyze the alternatives (and their costs) would be great!
Regime theory, not engaged citizenry, best explains OKC’s successes. It’s the alignment of government and business interests that is key to what has happened and will happen in OKC.
MAPS3, for example, is evidence that the citizen vision is largely irrelevant. And it’s a little disingenuous to have profited so greatly as part of that government and business alignment and then step back and claim it is all the will of the citizens.
I think this guest post demonstrates an ability to get others to come up with the answers you want, which is way beyong my rhetoric ability.
By completely avoiding what Blair thinks OKC specifically needs, and instead focusing on framing the debate, he supports the same conclusion..just gets others to provide the answers he otherwise would have, himself.
I think Blair’s post has helped me realize I probably focus too much on the specifics of detail every time I think about something.
Maybe we should always ask WWBHD? before we engage in debate over OKC urban renewal.
“MAPS3, for example, is evidence that the citizen vision is largely irrelevant. And it’s a little disingenuous to have profited so greatly as part of that government and business alignment and then step back and claim it is all the will of the citizens.”
What is citizen vision? Do citizens always know what they should want? Prior to MAPS, I had no idea that I should want a canal, a baseball park, an arena, a renewed Oklahoma River. It was someone other than a private citizen who had a vision that has transformed our downtown. We were allowed to fill out a poll about what we wanted for MAPS 3, and 700+ people responded. Most people said they wanted mass transit, but how many of them really knew what they were asking for? How many knew which type of transit would work best, what it would cost to build and maintain, etc? And can we even assume that a few hundred people filling out a poll are speaking for the citizens as a whole?
Someone besides me has come up with an interesting idea for a streetcar system, which we will hear more about tomorrow night. Is that the will of the citizens, or simply a good idea that many of us will be happy someone had? I was hoping for a city park, and that seems to be one of the key features, so I’m happy. I’m not as interested in a convention center, but am not absolutely opposed, Since there are other things in MAPS 3 that I definitely want, hopefully we will have a new convention center.
I think people are spending too much time worrying about whether someone might profit from MAPS 3. Rather, we should think seriously about whether we as citizens will benefit from it. If, as a side benefit, some people profit, then it’s not a lot different from the restaurant and hotel owners who have profited from MAPS. If the concept is good, and it makes our city a more attractive, interesting, convenient place in which to live, that is a good thing. Let’s vote based on whether this will help our city, help it keep growing and improving, help it move up to be a place people want to live, move to or visit. Then, as Blair has suggested, if it passes, let’s attempt to have our voices heard, regarding the specifics of these general concepts of park, transportation, convention center.
Not your best attempt sarcasm Patrick. I’m very disappointed that you’re spending time reading these comments when you should be finding the next news babe photo.
Blair,
Congratulations for being such a great “citizen” of this city. It takes a great deal of love for your home remotely care and sacrifice the time to try to positively influence the future.
Several people mention above whether there has been a “ground swell” from the citizenry. I can assure you that the transit campaign is “the” organic proposal in this initiative.
The citizen volunteers involved started last November. Overtime, more and more people have gotten involved. Now there are dozens of volunteers and thousands upon thousands of hours invested in making sure that the best proposals for transit are rising to the top.
People have given their time, their money, their opinions, their planning, and ultimately their voice.
Mayor Cornett has been gracious. The council has been gracious. Even council members who have questioned the proposals have been gracious.
The transit initiative is the people’s initiative. Based on the hundreds of RSVP requests for the Skirvin tomorrow, I hope that reality exposes itself.
James -
You are mostly right that “Regime theory, not engaged citizenry, best explains OKC’s successes.” But it also explains are most conspicuous failures. I am in favor of shifting towards a people centric approach that limits failure and favors democracy. If we ultimately have the power to decide issues with an up-or-down vote, why can’t we also be given the opportunity to – help – decide what we vote on?
Nick -
Thanks! I am really glad you find the post to be effective. Kind words that are much appreciated.
Patrick -
I could try to say something funny, but I am much more interested in staying on your good side. Recommendations on length of future posts duly noted.
Jeff -
Keep up the good work! I wish I could be there tomorrow night. Please let me know if there is anyway I can contribute.
To anyone I didn’t respond directly, appreciate you all reading and discussing. I learned a lot through this process. Thanks again to Steve for the opportunity!
Great history on the NYC story. I sure love visiting and need to go back. I thought about looking up my forthcoming question but realized it would take too long to look up and that you (Blair) would probably already know the answer…
What were the voting numbers on the exampled Brooklyn Battery Bridge? Was it a public vote? Just by the sound of it, it sounds like whatever the council voted on was final orwould put the bridge in motion…obviously in OKC, the citizens have the ultimate “say” with their vote in December. Are the situations similar in that regard? If so, kudos for the citizens of New York to step up and fight for what the want/need…if not, then I really don’t see the correlation between what happened then and what is happening now in OKC.
As stated at the press conference today, 12 of the top 14 projects suggested by the 2700ish citizens that wished to participate in the MAPS 3 survey, will be implemented in MAPS 3. Sounds like the citizens are getting what they want. The two suggestions that aren’t implemented?? Building a new football stadium and…I forget (oops, someone fill me in).
Point is, the idea of Maps 3 hit the public scale 21 months ago at the State of the City. The citizens have spoken loudly in those 21 months and 2700ish of them even went online to voice their opinion and their opinion was heard (as 12 of the top 14 are being implemented).
The have had 21 months to voice their opinion to their councilman.
Then, then the citizens will still have the final say with their vote.
The citizens now have 2.5 more months to learn whether they are for it or against it. Ask questions…get educated and if you come to a conclusion, speak it out and vote.
Casey,
This was my OKC 2020 post, not my MAPS 3 post. I think the NYC story speaks for itself. In this case, the voters were not asked to approve a new tax because the funding was already in place, so the scope of the discourse was limited to how existing funds should be spent. The story was only meant to demonstrate the value of public discourse and citizen involvement…do we agree this is a good thing?
For me, by the year 2020, I would like an opportunity for citizens to be more involved in the process, allowing people to openly and specifically discuss alternatives, and weigh the pros and cons of various proposals.
MAPS 3
While I have tried to stay away from discussing MAPS 3 directly, I will respond to your stats on citizen influence. Here are a few questions that should be answered if these statistics are going to be used by anyone again:
- How did we decide to do 12 out of 14? Why not 10 out of 11, or 20 out of 24?
- Why are projects included included in MAPS 3 that weren’t listed by the citizens in the Top 12?
- Also, if the maps3.org survey is the framework we are using for choosing projects, will it also be used for budgeting projects?
The answer to these questions are simple, and do much to demonstrate the reality of the decision-making process employed to this point.
In the end, I am for MAPS 3 because it is good for Oklahoma City. That’s it, you have my support. Hopefully my post will help shape the way people approach the post-vote phase of MAPS 3…after having overwhelmingly voted yes.
Casey, with all due respect, the mayor said in May there would be public forums over the summer and a discussion on what should be on the MAPS ballot. That didn’t happen. And I’m not sure that anyone would qualify the MAPS 3 online survey done three years ago as being scientific or timely. I’m not saying the ballot is good or bad. But facts are facts. No public discussion involving city leaders took place this summer as was mentioned in May. I’m also curious as to whether any of the items on the ballot were not priorities listed by the survey from three years ago.
Great questions Blair, those are the types of questions I think about a lot too.
Steve- A public forum would have been good to watch, I don’t know why it didn’t happen…do you think that the leaders don’t know what everyone is saying because that didn’t happen? (just trying to get to the root of the reasoning behind having a public discussion)
Casey, I don’t know of any moment where the mayor or city leaders presented their proposal for a MAPS 3 ballot and then asked the public to tell them whether they thought it was the right mix of projects. And the mayor indicated in May that’s what was going to happen over the summer.
Instead, the mayor was the lone voice saying, yes, there will be transit, yes there will be a convention center, yes there will be a central park. The public was never given a chance to hear or respond to the ballot before it was, as it appears, cemented in place. Right or wrong, and I’m only pointing out the inconsistencies that have occurred, I’m hearing from many people that this ballot was created behind closed doors.
As a reporter, I want the public to be as fully informed as possible and to be empowered with that information to engage in deciding their city’s future.
You may once again try to take from this that I’m anti-MAPS 3 or anti-downtown from this comment. If so, I would suggest, based on previous comments, that you simply don’t understand what motivates reporters. We want to get the story out to readers. We want to question things and not simply accept what we’re told. I fear that because this responsibility has been neglected by so many in my profession, that when someone still pursues such efforts, it’s no longer understood.
I wasn’t arguing. I was literally asking if you thought the voices of the public weren’t heard because a public forum didn’t happen.
I understand your role as a journalist and I hope you understand that I don’t ask you questions in a defensive front because my dad is the mayor, I ask them as an engaged downtown citizen and curious Oklahoma City resident.
Keep asking your questions. I’m fine with them. Just try to be ok with me asking questions too. I walk a fine line between being seen as my dad’s son and as a downtown particpant…I guess with my questions coming in written form and not in person with facial expressions and vocal tones it can be difficult for people to see the meaning behind my comments.
Regardless, great post Blair. Keep the posts and thought provoking comments coming.
Thanks Casey! I actually understand where you are coming from. You do a great job of staying engaged and I really have enjoyed the discussion.
As you know, I follow your blog, and I must admit, everytime I watch HGTV and all those cool Gen Yers and Gen Xers on the hunt for trendy urban housing, I think of Blair Humphreys. =) And, the more I watch these shows, many, the more exotic Oklahoma seems. Wide open spaces.
Great job, Steve, opening your blog up to different folks. Did you influence the Daily Oklahoman’s decision to run the AP story about Generation X’s summer of losses of icons? You rock!
Maybe this answers some of the above questions about the MAPS 3 survey. Not all 12 of the 14 were included in MAPS 3, but have been addressed in other City initiatives (Ford/NBA tax, 2007 General Obligation Bond, 2007 School Bond etc)
http://www.okc.gov/maps3/ideas.html
Unfortunately their footnote info at the bottom doesn’t tie back to the info above it (have to make the connections for yourself)
As far as why 12 out of 14 instead of some other numbers, probably it took them until they got to the 14th one before all of their priorities were included (just happened that 2 others sneaked in).
I agree with Jill that it is a small sampling of people… less than 3,000 in a City of half a million, over a period of 4 months (3 years ago now, would their response be the same now as then?). That’s presuming that every respondent was a citizen of OKC (they got responses from all 50 states and several foreign countries). Yet this is the same survey that the Mayor used as overwhelming support for going ahead with a MAPS 3 (the 85% figure).
I also agree when she wrote: “can we even assume that a few hundred people filling out a poll are speaking for the citizens as a whole?” (Actually it was a few thousand)
But other than a higher sample size (but still a small minority of the population), how is that much different than saying “the majority of the people/community/entire City supported the Ford tax improvements” (statements like this were made by City leaders after the vote passed), when roughly 30% of the registered voters (15% of OKC residents) expressed their position? Simple fix for that is to say “The majority of the people who voted…”
Clarification to my post above when I wrote: “…less than 3,000 in a City of half a million…” (I had the 2,747 total suggestions number in my head…2,026 provided an idea, or a couple of thousand)
Peace
Really, I’m not trying to hijack the blog 
Thank you Blair
I agree 99.9% with your Conclusion (am sure there is something I could disagree with…LOL). Especially when you wrote: “Not only should we ask questions, but we should expect our leaders to answer the questions and answer them directly. If an idea cannot stand up to legitimate questioning, then it is an idea unworthy of our consideration.”
Unfortunately that was not my experience when I did precisely that concerning the Ford/NBA tax vote.
Blair,
My only question is, “When will you begin construction on The Waterfront project?” Which architect will you use? Are Phase I& II currently on hold? I am curious about the current status.
Thank You!
PS……Oklahoma City is blessed to have the “Humphreys clan”!
Blair…How did the ULI Student Urban Design Competition affect your interest in urban revitalization? Did the prize money help fund your education and/or career?
Keisha – I have not been actively involved in The Waterfront project. I left the Humphreys Co. over three years ago to pursue a career in planning and urban design. My dad and brother continue to work on The Waterfront, you can check out http://www.humphreysco.com/ to find out more and get in touch with them.
Jeannie – the ULI competition was a great experience and a tremendous opportunity to put forth our best efforts and ideas tackling a complicated infill and TOD development problem. More than anything I learned what is possible when you have a great team. Given the fungibility of money, I guess you could say the prize money helped fund my career – I launched my consulting practice in OKC at the beginning of this year.
Great thinking, Blair! I’m proud of you.
Dad