The link didn’t work for me for some reason. Here is another way to get there:

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/09/maps-iii-actual-proposal.html

The article is in its infancy and I hope to have it done over the weekend.

Doug, want me to withdraw the link until you’re done?

No, that’s fine. The end of the post says that its developing and people who read my stuff know that’s how I work, anyway.

My article is now done, except for any needed tweaks, corrections, etc. … and, if an when additional detail is presented by the city (probably beginning in stages according to the mayor which will start in October), it will be further modified as circumstances warrant.

It is a crock that we haven’t been given the detail when it is plainly available to be given, right now.

I should also say that this article is the most critical I’ve ever posted on a city-sponsored proposal, and I take no pleasure in making that statement. If a reader has the patience to read through the whole thing, he/she will see that I’m all for continuing the city’s MAPS I progress … even though I don’t like at all the way we are being treated … e.g., in the summer, the mayor says (paraphrasing), “Sure, additional input still matters and will be considered,” when it is now evident that was not the case … and not being given details of the proposal, now, when they are available, but having to wait on the schedule that, beginning in October, additional detail will be given. That type of thing really gets under my skin.

“but the inclusion of certain elements in MAPS III most certainly was based upon political considerations”

You do know that was true of the original MAPS as well right? Ron Norick has said as much on many occaisions. “There had to be something in it for everybody” was his exact comment.
Everybody has their own thoughts on what should be in MAPS III and its easy to conjecture that since my idea didn’t make it into maps, they obviously didn’t take anyone’s suggestions to heart. Everyone’s ideas can’t make the final cut. I know alot of people wanted an integrated mass transit center and its there.

Yes, Jeffrey, I do, and I appreciate the need for that. The original statement which I made did not make that clear but my completed article does. Certainly, political savvy was important in MAPS 1 and is equally important in MAPS 3.

My complaints don’t focus on what was or was not included. They focus on 2 procedural items:

(1) The mayor told us in the spring and summer that additional input was welcome and would be considered, and he even talked about some town hall type meetings … which didn’t happen. Nonetheless, several, myself included, spent scores of hours attempting to analyze and develop discussions concerning MAPS 3 which are now transparently useless and meant nothing at all. If the mayor didn’t mean it, he shouldn’t have led us to believe differently. So, when I alluded to “political considerations,” it would have been more accurate to say that those considerations, and not any of the constructive discussion which transpired during the summer, were what mattered. Substantive discussion was wholly meaningless since it didn’t matter one iota.

The 2nd procedural complaint I make is that, even now, you and I have still not been presented “all that there is” to present. What we have are superficial summaries which don’t hone in on details, even though those details are obviously available. Instead, we are told that, beginning in October, a series of presentations will occur which unfold the same.

What’s up with that? I, for one, want to know the detail as soon as it’s available (like on September 17), consider it, and reach my own conclusions. We are all entitled to know the detail when it is available and not wait to be spoon-fed what and when city leaders consider is meet and right so to do. That detail is available now. I don’t need my city leaders treating me as a child and telling me what THEY think I need to know, and when.

Doug,
We’ve all invested a lot of time in our blogs and in this blog (you in particular!) discussing MAPS 3 and the state of OKC, so it’s easy to take things personally when things don’t unfold the way we would like them. But rather than condemn MAPS 3 now, why not wait and hear what the city has to say in October? If, at that point, you still have beef with the proposed projects, then make your case. But it seems premature to dismiss MAPS 3 now, before all the facts are in. On the other side of that coin, it seems premature to extoll the virtues of the proposal before all the facts are in. Reserving judgment until the October presentations is the prudent thing to do. (You wouldn’t critique a movie based on its trailer, would you?) And quite frankly, there is too much at stake here and there are too many good projects proposed in MAPS 3 for us to dismiss the whole thing simply on procedural grounds. For me, the Sept. 17 presentation did just what it should: get me excited to learn more.

Chad, I haven’t condemned Maps 3, much the contrary. I have made clear that in all likelihood that I’ll support the proposal, despite the matters that I have raised. I said that explicitly.

Second, as I said above, my beef isn’t with the projects, per se. It is with procedure. If you are content to be presented a summary when detail could easily have been presented, that’s fine for you, but not me. If you are satisfied to be given detail according to a timetable determined by the city over a period of weeks, that’s fine for you, but not me.

But, again, if you characterize my criticisms as a condemnation and/or rejection of Maps 3, you are not a good reader.

Doug, I see where you’re coming from. Thanks for the clarification.

Doug,
I guess I read your article when it was still unfinished and so I missed your ranking of the various projects, where you clearly express a high interest in most of them. I should have gone back and reread your article before posting my comment above. Call me a bad reader, if you will; but why would you post a draft? Could this be bad writing? And I, too, prefer detail to summary, but, yes, I’m willing to wait a few weeks because I don’t assume that the City is withholding information from us. You do. Could you be misreading the situation?

As for writing articles piecemeal, that’s how I do it, noting until an article is done that more is coming. Good or bad, it’s my way.

About misreading the situation, anything is possible. In this case, however implausible it may seem, are you suggesting that the city does not yet possess the detail which be put together in the next couple of weeks and then will be piecemealed out beginning in October? Possible? Anything is possible but …

I’m suggesting that, yes, the city might still be working out some of the final details of, say, the route of the streetcar. But whether we have all the details between now and December isn’t that big of a concern for me. After all, when the MAPS I vote was held, the library was slated for a different location and design and the Bricktown canal had a different route. The projects evolved even after MAPS passed. Because MAPS I, MAPS II, and even the Ford Center tax have been so successful, I am willing to give the city the benefit of the doubt. City leaders have earned my good will.

Perhaps this raises a bigger question about citizen attitudes toward elected officials. I’m 33 years old, grew up in OKC, and for at least 20 years of my life, I’ve seen mayors and elected officials who do more good for OKC than harm. Our local government has been relatively scandal-free (and you can’t say the same for Boston, where I recently moved from).

But it now occurs to me that members of older generations, people who witnessed Urban Renewal and who tried to fight against the destruction of Main Street and so many important buildings like the Baum and the Biltmore, might hold a different, more complicated view of city government. When one has seen elected officials overplan and overengineer your city (and as a consequence drain the life blood from it), then I suppose one might be a little skeptical to sip the City’s tea. So, if this fits your experience, Doug, then I can see where your skepticism comes from.

No, it’s not that I’m skeptical at all. Ever since Ron Norick was mayor, my opinion of Oklahoma City government has been that it’s very good, even courageous when it needs to be, particularly its mayors. With Mayor Humphreys, we got MAPS 1 extended to cover the cost of the Ford Center and MAPS for Kids. With Mayor Cornett we got the Ford Center improvement vote, as well as the Hornets that came to town, and during his term the deal for the Skirvin Hilton culminated and came together, and that was incredibly good. So, no, it’s not skepticism that causes my criticisms. My criticisms only have to do with the 2 items that I’ve already identified. MAPS passed by only a 54-46 margin. I want to be a cheerleader for this MAPS, too, and may yet become one … but I’ve got to evaluate the detail before that will happen. I refuse to believe that lots of detail is there to have, even if not for the asking.

Last sentence above should be, “I refuse to believe that lots of detail is NOT there to have …”

I’ve added a poll … kinda late … but, ending September 30, the poll asks, “Doug you want more MAPS 3 detail before October 1?” Possible answers are Yes, No, and Don’t Care. The poll is located in the upper left area of my blog.

Error in the above … make the question, “Do you want more MAPS 3 detail before October 1?”

Since taking a few days after reading Doug’s article and preparing my pitchfork and torch and my “We’re mad as…” speech for city hall, I wonder if we may be overlooking some aspects of the city’s current presentation of MAPS if it is true that the Mayor and Council’s intentions are really not to pretend we do not have our big kid’s pants and need to be spoon fed information.

First, has anyone with access to the Mayor just asked him why full detailed proposals have not been released? Second, I wonder if the lack of details means there are still some details in flux? Either that could mean the details were not ready to be released (a scary proposition, if it means the city has not really thought everything through yet) or some aspects can still be changed, e.g. convention center location. I’m hoping for the latter since we know that MAPS 3 is being put on the ballot as more of a city “slush-fund” for lack of a better term, since we can not log-roll items into one proposal. Third, perhaps the lack of details is due to the city receiving counsel that to try avoid a “log-rolling” lawsuit it should avoid giving out true detailed proposals until after passage? I don’t know if any of the answers would really mollify me, but I’m curious nonetheless.

Good observations and questions, Brent. Historically, I’ve tended to be a city hall project cheerleader ala the March 4 vote when I aggressively did my small part to rally the pro-sales tax vote.

Perhaps I over reacted in my procedural criticisms and there are explanations for non-present-disclosure other than, “We’re not ready to give you the detail. Take a number and we’ll let you know.” I’d actually prefer that I be mistaken about my conclusions and be shown to have egg on my face. Right now, I’m not presently aware of my error.

The Maps projects have been nothing but a “win-win”
for the city. We have all learned so much from the original
maps program. The Maps3 will be the final piece, in redevoloping OKC.I personally disagree with the park. We have miles of river that is under used. But, the package as a whole is good for us.
We have thousands of people travel throgh our city every day. all we have to do is give them a reason to stop and enjoy, our beautiful city. they will spend money,and have a good time. good business!! thats what Maps3 is all about.

Rick wrote: “The Maps3 will be the final piece…”

What makes you say that? There will undoubtedly be a MAPS 4. (Not disagreeing with the intent of your post and not saying that MAPS 3, 4 or 10 can’t be a good thing overall, but it is an ongoing process. The Mayor and other City Leaders maintain we must continue the forward momentum). Don’t be mislead into thinking that this is the final chapter. As with MAPS, we got projects that were built but not as promised and especially in the case of the Ford Center, we got a functional but incomplete building that ended up costing an additional $120M (more than it cost to build it) to finish it. We were told when it opened 6 years ago that it was a “crown jewel” and “state of the art” and even had a 6 month extension of the MAPS tax to “finish MAPS right”.

Here are the Big 3 ticket items:

The Convention Center (the $280M “budgeted” is the low end or Phase 1 mentioned by the Mayor) Phase 2 will bring it up to $400M (in 2009 dollars).

The Central Park looks like it has only about half of the elements the Core to Shore report indicated that it should have. The Park is just part of the over-all Core to Shore project (Mayor described it as a $3 Billion…mix of public/private … taking 30 years to complete)

The $130M Downtown Streetcars are just a tiny start to the overall mass transit solution the Mayor has mentioned. A comprehensive plan that included “better bus service, commuter rail, a modern streetcar for the downtown area and bus rapid transit, which is a hybrid between bus and rail” was going to cost “$394 million to build and $90 million a year to maintain”.

What have we learned from MAPS? It came in at nearly 50% over what the voters were told (well over that if you include the $120M Ford tax to finish it). Reportedly they have “budgeted” only $17M (2.3%) in a $777M project in the “Contingency” fund. Not uncommon for amounts for any government project to be low-balled when sold to the public (we saw that with MAPS). Most say to allow at least 10% (most suggest 20% or more). MAPS was nearly 50% over and we are only allowing 2.3%??

Larry,
Where are your facts and figures on what the private sector
has spent because of MAPS? Nobody really knows, but its been
alot! How do you put a real price on what a new school means
to a neighborhood? Try putting a budget together years in
advance Larry.
MAPS3 will give the push needed to complete the core to shore project. The MAPS projects have given Devon, Sandridge,and Chesepeke a reason to stay here. They all know where Houston is. But, they chose to stay here. And
it isnt just because we are nice folks. They know this is a great place to live, because of the MAPS projects.

Rick, I’m not sure what you are asking (reportedly $3 billion of public and private has been spent due to MAPS). I am not disagreeing with your post, but what makes you think “Maps3 will be the FINAL piece…”?

Then I am not sure what you are meaning by “MAPS3 will give the push needed to COMPLETE the core to shore project.”

It is just the start of the Core to Shore (described by the Mayor as a 30 year project costing $3 billion…mix of public/private but no ratio has been given).

Maybe we are talking about the same things, but I am seeing this as the beginning/the start and you are using words that are indicating it is the end??

When the Ford Center was built, it was good for concerts, events, Blazer Hockey, etc. But NBA basketball? Not quite up to par. We knew that from the start, we just didn’t know we were gonna get a team less than 10 years after building it. So we simply went back and added the amenities that are required of NBA arenas for revenue stream purposes. When it’s all said and done, we will have spent just a little over 200 million which includes all renovations and a state of the art practice facility. That is an absolute bargain. The Ford Center will easily be among the best arenas in the league, and it will have been done for much cheaper. The leaders here are smart and the citizens here are smart. We know how to get things done the right way. Anything MAPS related is good for the city.