I probably will not be overturned, but where the money goes could change, and I think there are a majority of the people who would not mind that.

Can we compare Kilpatrick Turnpike to the streetcar system to the degree that it is “immovable” like the streetcar tracks would be, you have a fee to use it, and if we wanted to take a cheaper mode of transportation (ie. Memorial or walk downtown) you could. The amount of private investments that have occurred along the turnpike since its development has been staggering. That is what I see transpiring here. Public funds stimulating exponential private investment.
My sense is that these two gentlemen (and Pete White) only believe this streetcar system is going to be used by citizens that live here and not by people here for conventions, Thunder fans on game night, people from out of town that stay in the many new hotels being proposed. I believe this system would be a tremendous way to enhance their impressions of our city when they are in town.

Steve

RE: the Ward election results question…at one point there was a ward/precinct map showing the election results shortly after the election over at OKCTalk…but I haven’t been able to find it now. Think it had its own thread “Election Results” or something like that. IIRC, there was also a map showing the results for the original MAPS, and at least by Ward, they were fairly similar. Perhaps an over generalization but essentially North side supported it and South side rejected it.

On edit, maybe this was over in Doug’s blog???

Yes, Larry. The unofficial returns are here.

Unofficial returns for Wards 6 & 8:

Ward 8: 8,628 Yes (66%) … 4,469 No (34%)
Ward 6: 2512 Yes (51%) … 2,455 No (49%)

I doubt that official returns were particularly different.

The goal should be more population density in the downtown area. People create a dynamic downtown area. Buildings without people is a ghost town. The street car system will be a catalyst for people to live downtown. All your utilities and services should be cheaper and more efficient if you have a higher population density.
Looks like some people want more urban sprawl so you are more spread out which makes utilities and services more expensive, you need more roads and maintenance, more fire and police stations, more buses which help create more sprawl. You have to use your car to do anything. Urban sprawl makes mass transit more expensive and difficult.
The urban sprawl is the past. The future is high population density areas where people are close to everything they need.
The cost of fuel is going up not down. Why do people want to continue to promote urban sprawl?

From the sound of Hearron, I’d be concerned for more than just the streetcar portion of Maps 3… He sounds like a classic, old school, no fru-fru, dictator. From one side of his mouth he says “I want what the people want.” Then he says it’s his job to determine if the people “need” it!

This is scary. He’s already determined that the people don’t “need” ANY of it, regardless of how they voted…

When the MAPS vote was proposed, people were told what projects they would get if the vote passed. While each of us undoubtedly has particular favorites, they may be different from those of other voters. As a member of a community, it is just as important to me that people who voted for projects other than those I favor get what they were voting for. I realize that the ballot offers loopholes to our officials, but I think it would be a violation of the public trust for them to shift monies from any of the projects. In addition, any newly elected officals this spring need to look to the future, not to the past. If they have issues with MAPS, it is their job to react to any new proposals, including requests for additional funding or new MAPS votes. The people have spoken on the previous votes and I believe it is the job of anyone holding city office to support the will of the people, not their personal interests. It is just as wrong for them to say it is OK to shift monies as for me to say it’s fine to do so.

Doug – doesn’t look like your link is working. Was also wondering, do you have the numbers for Wards 6 and 8 reversed? They don’t look like what I’d expect.

While identifying myself as somewhat conservative in most policy areas, I have to divide myself from the opinions of these candidates. This tax is special. It is the people of OKC deciding to save and invest for things above and beyond the basic services or infrastructure, but instead repair the damages of the past and invest in the future.

The “white flight” and resultant urban decay are obvious failures of the past that need to be repaired. A city without a center is a city without a soul and the success of all the MAPS projects are rooted in repairing the damage of past sins. We’re having to move double time, fixing while improving. This include investments that look 30+ years down the road. I fully understand a street car system seems crazy now with a sparsely populated city center, and may not be the solution, but repeal or rejecting progress isn’t the right answer.

To be clear, if either candidate wants to better support the fire and police, street repair, etc. look for savings other places, or heaven forbid raise taxes. Keep your hands off our special savings.

In a side note how about progressive taxes on those that use the most resources to encourage efficiency, that ultimately helps cure some of these financial woes? Our roads would be in better shape if we didn’t have so many miles to maintain. Development will always be cheaper on the edges if the true cost to the tax payer isn’t passed on. That is something most white, conservative suburb dwellers don’t like to think about, but would help our city more than anything.

Todd, your comment is right on. It is just the type of public investment that could create much higher density in OKC. I think the canal is also an immovable object, provides (minimal) transportation, but has also spurred millions of dollars of investment. I remember Steve’s picture of the lower canal right after it was done. Empty. Now we have restaurants, a theatre, and a couple of hotels. And the surface has barely been scratched.

I may be wrong, but I thought the DART system in Dallas started out pretty minimal & now is very expansive. I would love to see the streetcar system be so overwhelmingly popular, that it too would expand to Norman,Edmond,Tinker,Will Rogers,etc.

In this, it is good to remember that MAPS 3 is not all that is involved. Oklahoma City has found a methodology in its leadership that defies party labels, and the method works.

Non-partisanship in city government has served the city well. \Liberal\ and \conservative\ (or party affiliation) placeholders take second place to city leadership being forward-looking pragmatists who want to continue the good thing started by MAPS 1, and having a sense that it is their role to lead and be creative, and, if given a green light by voters, get the job done. Private enterprise certainly abandoned that role decades ago. City leaders, without party or other label, have changed this city altogether for the good.

Consider the Skirvin Hotel. Remember that the city purchased the empty and decrepit Skirvin Hotel in 2002 with an eye to saving it and later worked in a public-private partnership with Marcus Hotels which led to the hotel’s reopening as the Skirvin Hilton in 2007. We bust our buttons with pride at this accomplishment, be we conservative, liberal, republicans, democrats, and perhaps, even Tea Partiers.

Can anyone imagine that Tea Partiers would (1) even thought of such a thing, (2) if they did that they would have accepted such a leadership role, or (3) if they did that they would have had the guts to do it at the risk of losing their favor with the Tea Party principles that be, whatever that might mean.

So … what if the myopic Tea Party principles and people were in place in 1993?

We can forget these things that we identify with today because they would never came to exist: Bricktown ballpark; Bricktown canal; Bricktown as we know it today (the other facts never happened and so neither did Bricktown); Norick library; updated Music Hall for a brilliant performing arts setting; Oklahoma River and its Olympic-class rowing events, walking/biking trails around, Chesapeake and Devon boathouses, etc. — they left the city to move to Houston since there was nothing to keep them here, and the Devon Tower for the same reason; Ford Center … the Hornets, the Thunder — they never happened; the library — still trying to eek it out its 1950ish location on Robinson; the Skirvin … demolished since Tea Partiers didn’t see it their job to get involved. Condo development east of the Santa Fe? All gone.

First and foremost, Tea Partiers say that they care about the U.S. Constitution as understood by our Founding Fathers. If taken to its roots, that could mean slavery, non-sufferage, the right to own ground to air missiles and grenade lauchers, etc. Doubtless, they don’t really mean that, but, taking their own views as being based on those of our Founding Fathers, this characterization is not necessarily far from the mark.

At the municipal level, they prioritize tax money being spent for police, fire, streets, and code enforcement. They also advocate lowering taxes. They don’t have a care about about downtown’s core. Free enterprise will take care of that.

Not fine. Not fine at all.

I will start youth protests in “Bicentennial” park and we will rename it Streetcar Square before they change MAPS 3.

Just a thought, but you’d likely do more good by educating a few people each day on why the intended projects are worth the effort to bring them to fruition.

Doug, thanks for the info (couldn’t get the link to work, the error message said the page doesn’t exist?)

Larry, try this.

Ward 2, where I live, presumably will remain steadfast in its support for MAPS 3.

My mostly-impeccable credentials as a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy notwithstanding, I am suspicious of any organized group branding itself as Tea Party; the whole idea of the contemporary Tea Party is to avoid formal organizations, which have proven themselves to be infinitely corruptible. I dislike taxes as much as the next guy; however, this particular tax was voted on and passed, and it has an expiration date. (Yes, it could be extended, but that too would have to be voted on.) Unless something in the package can be found to be unconstitutional, which seems unlikely, these guys are going to produce a fair amount of sound and fury, but nothing of significance.

If somehow MAPS 3 is overturned, it will be the end of MAPS as we know it. I will not vote for the next one and I know a lot of people who will not vote for the next one either.

The problem I have with the “market” solution concept is that the playing field isn’t level. If we are to hold our citizens to a purely market based economy that would include any peripheral benefits as deemed by developers, then it should follow that public utilities and assets be levied to users in the exact same way. If you live 10 miles from the police station, you should pay a higher tax rate because it takes more money to staff and patrol your area. Same for fire stations and utilities. It takes far more fire stations and personnel to provide coverage over vast suburban areas. Starting at the core, rings of costs could be quite easily determined and if you live 10 miles from the center of town, why should 10 miles of citizens be required to subsidize the cost of pushing water or sucking sewer so great a distance? Developers and potential buyers would look at vacant land as an expensive way to build. If builders and then new property owners were assessed the full cost of laying new roads and then maintaining them, would we have so many new developments?

If costs were true to the liner foot, then low density would be a luxury for the rich and our cities would better represent economies of scale.

Of course this idea is absurd and only semi-agreeable to a few urbanists that are simply fed up with low density developments. It frustrates me to hear people talk about market solutions when by our own design and liking, we have insulated ourselves from anything like market costs of the way we live. The irony is that it is all starting to catch up to us and without projects like MAPS, market forces could ‘force’ our hand and our city would have no choice but to scale back, and drastically. In similar fashion to the ways cities all over this country are doing.

Enough with the talk of market solutions for downtown unless we are prepared to start seriously talking about market costs for living the pipe dream that is our suburban city.

Yeah, what Sid said

“Unless something in the package can be found to be unconstitutional…”

The whole, all-or-nothing MAPS 3 Ballot was illegal/unconstitutional (log rolling). The City said they would adhere to the law (their own City attorney said that the original MAPS was also probably unconstitutional for the same reasons, but no one challenged it in court). Then we got the same old, all-or-nothing Ballot. Why? The Mayor stated that he and the Council decided to use it because that was the format the voters were “used to”. Conveniently ignoring the illegal aspect and the fact the voters routinely vote for bond issues etc where like kind projects are listed as separate propositions on the ballot.

I like the, “We all move forward together, or stay backwards together,” aspect.

I’ve located some additional information about the common bond between the 2 Tea Partiers and have updated my blog article accordingly. In a nutshell, they are both members of the Windsor Hills Baptist Church, which is located in Larry McAtee’s Ward 3, and they are both on the faculty of that church’s sponsored college, Oklahoma Baptist College & Institute.

Larry, you said, “Then we got the same old, all-or-nothing Ballot. Why?”

The answer is simple — the approach worked. Mayor Coats tried his “6 to Fix” campaign which was generally unsuccessful. In that, each project was on a separate ballot. Mayor Ron Norick’s MAPS (I) was the 1st to use the all or nothing approach. By doing so, the various components were brought together, with the result being that each element advocated the other’s cause, so that sports arena people were advocating the value of the arts projects, and the arts people were advocating the sports parts. By putting all interests involved with the vote into a common pot, each pulled for the other. If the ballots were separated into a project-by-project basis, that political convergence would not have occurred.

It is my understanding that Tea Partiers are against taxes for social welfare. I know they are a loose group but they are fiscally conservative. I am surprised these guys running for city council say they are supportive of police and firemen because those groups are union backed and I thought tea party people hated unions too. The MAPS tax already exists and it seems like political corruption to take money that the people voted to spend in one place and move it to another. I would expect to see that in a place like New Orleans or one of those other cities known for money disappearing from where it is rightfully supposed to go. If I were them, I wouldn’t go on public record saying I’m taking money from the people who voted and giving it to something they didn’t vote for.

Nick, aren’t you in one of these wards? Are you sure now that you want to abandon OKC residency? Can your vote make a difference?
Remember what they’re saying – they’re counting on you and others not voting:
“These races are very low turnout; literally a couple thousand voters will choose who gets the seat, so we stand an excellent chance of winning these two seats if we put money and effort into the races…”

It makes sense Sid. Things don’t always make sense.

My wife and I are in Ward 6, we will be voting.

If the public’s trust in city leadership keeping its promises comes to be broken in 2011, many years from now local historians may well be able to look back and identify 2011 as the end of the city’s MAPS period. Even if that sad event comes to pass, chances are good, though, that those historians will call the MAPS period one of the most glorious in the city’s history.

While Doug makes some valid points isn’t it the end justifying the means question? Yes, it worked but they had to use an illegal means to do it.

Doing it legally can work as well. No guarantee of course but all of the propositions in the 2007 GO bond passed. All of the propositions in the past 2 school bond issues passed. Tinker bond was a mixed bag as some passed, some didn’t.