This article will continue to be modified as MAPS 3 developments occur and more information becomes available. It was originally posted on September 20, three days after Mayor Cornett's September 17 announcement of MAPS 3, and it was last modified on October 5, 2009. However, I'm calling this revised article, MAPS III — The Actual Proposal Redux because it more accurately reflects my personal opinions today as opposed to those when it was first written on September 20 and then completed on September 24. For purposes of historical completeness, a copy of the version which was current as of September 24 is available here.
In another lengthy article, I tried as well as I was objectively able to present the pros and cons with regard to the on-the-table report of the Core To Shore Steering Committee to contribute to the discussion, and I'll not repeat the content of that article here. In a nutshell, that article presented the Steering Committee's late 2007 report for the purpose of understanding, discernment, and discussion at a time that, presumably, your and my input may have been a factor in shaping the final plan. In a separate article, ballot, ordinance, and council resolution issues are addressed.
MY EARLIER RANT. In the earlier version of this article, I began it with a preface in which I voiced a pair of complaints. Among other things, I said:
As a preface to a pair of procedural matters which I regard as important and have been handled poorly, let me begin by saying that I have respect and a good regard for our mayor and the city council members that I personally know. Despite that, I have a present need to be straightforward.
In my own rambling way, those complaints were identified more particularly:
Misleading Statements About Value of Additional Input. Among other things, I said these things about that:
I really do hate being the village jackass by saying this, but it is now evident that statements by the mayor during the spring that input could still be made and would be considered in shaping the final MAPS 3 proposal are now clearly nothing but window-dressing. Do I correctly recall something being said about town hall meetings? Heck, now we know that the City Park renderings at the end of this article are dated August 14, 2009. It seems clear enough that those of us who took the mayor's comments to heart and spent considerable time and thought in discussing this stuff during the summer were just flat-out wasting our valuable time.
I also said,
I'm not presently inclined to think that your and my input during summer 2009 mattered at all — I'm more inclined to think that the summer's MAPS III decisions were based solely on political considerations which would facilitate a MAPS III passage at the polls. The mayor essentially said as much in the press conference when he said that the city was probably divided into 3 thirds: (1) Those wanting everything downtown; (2) those wanting everything spread out through the city; and (3) those wanting to chose the best ideas no matter where such project may be located. He pointed out that proposals like this are always difficult to pass. He implied that the package's blend endeavored to have stuff to interest all three groups to facilitate passage of the package deal.
That's fair enough — political savvy in passing MAPS I was certainly involved and required and good political judgment in a package deal like this is certainly a good thing.
Political savvy is one thing but misleading citizens to believe that the summer's additional input was still welcome and would be considered is something else altogether — and what happened to those town hall meetings that were promised in the spring? Never happened. Secondly, the absence of detail presented on and after September 17 (thus far) is also quite another matter. Political savvy is good, but the items just mentioned show a lack of respect for the citizenry.
Lack of Detail. The second major gripe I made was that we hadn't been given the full deck of cards, right then, when they were available to be given. A few days later, I started a short-term poll ending 9/30/09, results shown at right. All we were (and have thus far been) given is a summary. About my perceptions and expectations, I complained that we were entitled to all available detail as soon as it was available, that we were smart enough to cuddle up to it and analyze it for ourselves, right then, and not wait for MAPS 3 campaign presentations beginning this month in which that detail would strategically (I didn't use that word but it was in my head to think it) be made available. Additionally, I said,
Neither the press conference, nor the www.MAPS3.org website (including it subparts) give any real detail. It's like the city is mimicking what cool-guy Jack Nicholson said in the 1992 movie, A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth." Jack was wrong. We CAN handle the truth and some of us (me, at least) are fairly pissed that we've not yet gotten it. The mayor was wrong in not providing the detail as soon as it became available, on or before September 17 and as this edited file is written on September 24 nothing has changed.
The above summarizes the complaints stated in my original blog article. However, what I said originally should be tempered, supplemented, and adjusted by what would next occur, to my complete surprise.
CONVERSATION WITH DAVID HOLT. On September 25, I received a polite e-mail from David Holt, Chief of Staff to Mayor Cornett, in which he said,
Doug — I read your blog. There seems to be a disconnect between the level of information you think we have and what we actually have. If you want to call me next week, or visit, please do so, and we can talk in more detail.
I naturally accepted the invitation, and so it happened that on Monday, September 28, less than 24 hours prior to the September 29 City Council vote, a meeting was arranged for in his office around 1:00 p.m. on September 28 on the 3rd floor of the Municipal Building — heady stuff for a mere Oklahoma City blogger like me who is ever so much more interested in the city's history than he is in its politics — I think that I've made that very clear already — I don't like making political posts. But, it's my own fault for posting stuff about the MAPS 3 vote if I wanted to avoid politics, so I've got no one to blame for that than myself.
The meeting itself lasted about 1 hour and 20 minutes, as I recall. When I arrived, I noticed that the City Hall's fountains were looking particularly beautiful ...
... a good omen for the meeting, I was thinking.
Here, I'll try to present in an organized and coherent manner (my notes lack that quality — he allowed me to jump around and ask about stuff as it occurred to me to think of it) that Mayor Cornett's Chief of Staff had to say.
By the way, David is the tall guy on the left. Click on the photo for a larger view.
First off, despite the biting criticisms I'd made in the original article of his boss, the Mayor, if not City Council, David was more than polite and gracious at all times during the meeting, and I was made to feel comfortable and welcome, even on those occasions that smart-ass questions or comments managed to pop out of my mouth. We exchanged many laughs and no frowns and I would say that the meeting was marked by a gregarious tone and was a wholly respectful time, both ways. Heck, at the end of the meeting, he even gave me an official Bic Grip Roller pen containing graphics of the city's logo and the Mayor's signature when I left as a souvenir of the meeting. How cool was that?
Second, and much more importantly, a summary of the the discussion follows — I've paraphrased our words unless otherwise stated. Don't be fooled by the fairly organized structure presented below — a tape recording would show that the conversation was much more random and disorganized than is presented below, largely because of my own jumping around with various questions and comments.
What about those town hall and/or other meetings in which additional citizen input might be received and considered in the formation of the final MAPS 3 package. Rightly or wrongly, some of us expected that such meetings would occur — why didn't they?
David said that he was unaware that the mayor had ever mentioned "town hall meetings" and would be surprised if he did, since such types of meetings are not part of Mayor Cornett's style. (Remember, I'm paraphrasing.) He did say that he would stand to be corrected if I found something to the contrary.
Yesterday morning, I looked to see what I could find. I found absolutely no press or other media reports which used that phrase, "town hall meeting" with regard to MAPS 3. So, I have to conclude that term was the product of my own wishful thinking and was an error on my part in the initial article.
But, in searching the Oklahoman's archives, I did find that the eighth annual "Mayor's Development Roundtable" was scheduled for and did occur at the Cox Convention Center on May 13, 2009. In his OkcCentral.com blog article called "End of Summer" on August 30, 2009, Steve Lackmeyer said,
OK, before anyone gets picky about it, I’ll concede that technically summer isn’t over until Sept. 21. But in terms of all the discussion that took place back in May, it seems as if we’ve only had a lot of behind-closed-door discussions and pronouncements by Mayor Mick Cornett as to what will and won’t be on the MAPS 3 ballot.
We’ve certainly not had any public forums or opportunities for residents to tell city leaders what they want to see on the ballot – a process Cornett indicated would take place over the summer before the ballot items were to be decided (Cornett indicated such a process would take place while being questioned at a press conference during the Mayor’s Development Roundtable in May).
So, despite my flop on "town hall meetings," I didn't come up completely empty handed in my research.
To my knowledge, no specific opportunities for public input as to the final MAPS 3 ballot occurred after the May 13, 2009, Roundtable meeting through the time of the September 17 press conference which officially announced the content of MAPS 3.
That's so even though other Oklahoman articles indicate that at least some potential items, such as a June 8 article concerning the Bricktown Canal extension and, as well, a July 3 article was again mentioned as were possible locations of the convention center. In the latter July 3 article, the Mayor was quoted as saying (emphasis supplied),
"The MAPS 3 ballot is not a done deal, and this [the possible canal extension] could be considered," Cornett said Thursday. "I've not had any level of depth of conversation with the council about plugging this in. But I think the idea of whether it's a MAPS 3 project is very much on the table and I don't think a conclusion has been made."
On whose table? The table was a private one and was not public. The public did not participate in a discussion of the alternatives which were privately being considered.
Taking Mayor Cornett's statement at face value, the final configuration of MAPS 3 was NOT a done deal as of July 3 even though it became one by the August 17 news conference. Location of the Convention Center was, may still be, an open topic. But there were no public meetings in which the item was discussed.
We know now that the potential inclusion of a Bricktown Canal extension did not make the final cut. Whether the size and configuration of the proposed Central Park was reconsidered we are left to guess, based upon an absence of reported information.
"Transparency" is a big deal with the city, and, presumably, that means that you and I actually get to "see" what is going on whether the "going on" be in a public or private meeting. However, the problem with non-public decision-making has nothing to do with transparency, it has to do with invisibility.
Private decision-making meetings certainly do not involve the participation or knowledge of the public where you or I give any input; they do not involve our knowledge, either, of what might have transpired. And, apparently, no record exists that such meetings and decisions ever occurred. Transparency means, I think, that one can see what is going/has gone on. Invisibility means that one does not know what is or may have gone on. There is a difference.
So, I think that I'll just pass this one back to David and ask, "Were any public (citizen) meetings scheduled on any of these open topics; secondly, if only private meetings were held, why was that?" Surely, some explanation and decision as to why the possible Bricktown Canal extension was not "plugged in" is available; ditto for the convention center location, as mentioned above.
By e-mail, David's October 5 response to the above is the following:
From the Mayor’s perspective, every day is one long public meeting. All he did for several months was talk about MAPS 3 with citizens. Our door was always open. And though I wouldn’t say we received a ton of e-mails on the topic of MAPS 3 during the period you mention, we are easy to e-mail, and all that we received were read by myself, the Mayor and the City Manager.
As to why the Canal extension wasn’t included, it probably falls in the category of good ideas that there just wasn’t enough room for. As for the Convention Center location, as I indicated in our meeting, that’s still an open question, and the time for a substantive public dialogue may not occur for several years.
Between the 2007 online survey, our open door policy, and the normal interaction with the public by the Mayor and Council, who are elected to represent the people of Oklahoma City in such conversations, we are confident there is not an opinion that wasn’t heard. Just because an opinion isn’t used doesn’t mean it wasn’t heard, and it’s also possible the time for a certain decision hasn’t actually arrived yet.
How were decisions made about the non-core items made, where did the input come from? By "non-core" (my term, not David's), I mean other than (a) the central park, (b) convention Center, and (c) street cars ... items not having a downtown focus. To mimic the model used by Mayor Norick in original MAPS, something needed to be included for others in the city who are not so much only, or at all, interested in the development of downtown and the inner city (as big a priority as that is with me).
David's response was that, largely, identification of the other items in MAPS 3 came from City Council members, e.g., a couple favored the senior citizen and wellness centers, and so on. About the development of the Oklahoma River item, he said that no one or two council members were responsible for that but it was more the result of a consensus that such projects be included.
About the absence of detail, I asked if greater detail about the proposed projects wasn't presently available in addition to what is described in the Summary. This one was kind of fun as we were both enjoying playing with each other — me with my disbelief, David in his obvious sincerity that the city didn't have much if any greater detail for the most part beyond that contained in the Summary.
Why my disbelief? MAPS 3 IS NOT a Johnny-Come-Lately kind of thing — it's been in various stages of planning for years — and but for a Ford Center opportunity which arose in December 2007 and was voted on March 7, 2008, we'd have almost certainly already voted on MAPS 3 by now if not at the exact time that the Ford Center vote occurred. But, the NBA gods and designated angels were with us in this twilight zone time in our city's history. Regardless of the supernatural factors, by reason of the Mayor's magnificent leadership in this time, the March 7 vote occurred with astonishing swiftness and surgical accuracy, it passed muster in the public's vote, and during July we wound up getting an NBA team in a mind-boggling short span of time. Seattle fumbled. Either that, or as Bob Berry Sr. once said (and by doing so coined the phrase when talking about something entirely different), Seattle lost the team by reason of "self-tacklization" and offered Oklahoma City a mighty fine opportunity should this city opt to land on their fumble and run the ball in for a touchdown. Which we did.
But before that opportunity presented itself, and but for all of the late 2007-early 2008 developments regarding the NBA, some form or measure of MAPS 3 was in all probability ready to be put on the voters table by late 2007 or early 2008. So, when MAPS 3 was revisited in 2009, it was not a "new" deal. The Core To Shore final report was presented in late 2007. Although Core To Shore and MAPS 3 are not synonymous terms, at least some elements in MAPS 3 and Phase 1 of Core To Shore — central park, convention center, and streetcar — are essentially the same. So, surely, with all of that time to think about it, it is more than reasonable to think that more detail is available than that which has been presented so far.
David said that there are three levels of questions that voters ask vis a vis a MAPS type proposal, some being more concerned about one level than another: (1) The Generalists (my term) who say, "Do I want the city to continue to move forward with what began with the initial MAPS?"; (2) Those who focus on the identification of projects, generally, e.g., those who want a central park, those who want light rail, those who don't, etc.; (3) Those who want to know still more detail about the projects, particularly (my words).
To make the point, using the March 4 Ford Center vote as an example, David threw it back to me, knowing that I had already identified myself as being a gung-ho March 4 Ford Center vote supporter. "Did you want to know about loge seating in the Ford Center?" "No, I didn't — my interest was focused on getting an NBA team, my only concern," I replied (or something like that). His point, of course, was that, for that vote, I didn't care about detail.
He also said, when I inquired about street car routes, "Does it matter to you whether the route is on Hudson or Harvey?" I replied, "No, but I'd like to have an idea of what route is contemplated." I said, "One graphic shows the street car going into Bricktown. Does that mean that it will? David's response was basically, "Duh ..." He didn't put it that way but I got the point and I now take it that a that a Bricktown path is a certainty.
My take? Great ... but what's wrong with explicitly saying so in the MAPS 3 documents? We shouldn't have to guess.
Anyway, no route is formally set, should that matter. I don't suppose that it does, as long as it goes through Bricktown.
Hmmm ... might he be make progress with me?
What about the pictures — do the graphics presented by the city mean anything about detail or not? As an example, I asked him about the lake design shown in the proposed central park — should we presume that the lake will probably look like that ... or not?
David began responding by getting into whether people might like the design, but I interrupted and said that wasn't my question — the question being more general and having to do with how we, you and I, should interpret graphic images presented by the city. Does the detail in those graphics present detail that should be expected, at least kinda sorta, or not? In this instance, I asked him if we hadn't paid someone (Hargreaves Associates, I think) more than $500,000 to come up with a park design, and wouldn't one expect that the detail shown would most likely be reasonably reliable?
This is the model on display in the City Hall entrance ...
... and it would be fair enough to suppose that we'd be getting more than a concept and a nice model to display for the $500+ thousand spent. Maybe that's just me.
I don't recall what David said about this. I'm emailing him the link to this revised article and he's at liberty to correct any impressions I have that are wrong, and I'll make needed changes. I have no wish to mischaracterize anything that he said.
By e-mail, David adds the following on October 5:
I think it’s fair to expect implementation of what you see in the latest park designs. But that’s not to say that if some detail met with a public outcry, that the City wouldn’t respond and make an alteration. That’s all part of the ongoing public discussion that has traditionally followed every MAPS vote. Election day is really the beginning, not the end. But we have verified that the money set aside in MAPS 3 can create what you see in those designs, and I suppose we did that for a reason – we do understand that the designs create expectations. So I think you can rely to a great extent on those designs, understanding that there is always a natural adjustment when vision meets reality.
Other Projects. About the State Fairgrounds, David said that a master plan is in place and that it would be fair enough (no pun intended) to expect that MAPS 3 money earmarked for the fair would be done to develop that plan. Ditto the master plan for trails. On these, I agree ... fair enough. About the proposed sidewalks and their location, it came up but only in passing, and I don't recall what was said and I have no notes about that. Frankly, the sidewalks project was not, is not, at all important to me but a better reporter would have taken greater care about this MAPS 3 element than I did to for the sake of being thorough.
Has a location for the convention center been determined or is that still up for grabs? I mentioned my concern, and that of some others, that a location south of the Ford Center, as opposed to south of Lower Bricktown in the Cotton Producers Cooperative Oil Mill area which I understand to be up for sale, might be detrimental to Bricktown development.
About this, David was (as I recall) somewhat vague but he did say that, in the end, a cost analysis of acquisition of the comparative areas Cotton Producers Cooperative Oil Mill would have to become involved. I think that he said that, for the south-of-Ford Center, land acquisition costs would be around $30M (an OG&E power substation is located there) but the cost of the Coop Oil Mill area might be much greater. I think (but am not sure) that he said the $30M was included in the $280M projected cost. He can correct me about this if I've got it wrong.
If it's so that $30 million is included as part of the convention center cost, that would seem to make south of the Ford Center the default location, even though David didn't say that it was.
By October 5 e-mail, David adds:
Yes, the $30M for the OGE substation relocation is included in the convention center estimate, but that $30M mitigation budget could just as easily go towards mitigation at a different site, if that made sense at a later time.
What about the Senior Citizen Health and Aquatic Centers? What might they be like and how many might there be?
David said that no decision had been made about this but that the Mayor liked what had been done in Little Rock and he mentioned the name, "Patrick Hayes." After the meeting, I Googled for that combination of words and came up with this weblink in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Combining a pair of graphic images there, you get this:
Now, if that presents the general notion of what MAPS 3 might involve, even if only as a concept, why not show that image just as I've done by web search?
Even if the North Little Rock facility is only presented as a concept, ain't somethin' better than nuttin? Seems so to me, but, once again, that's just me — even if the question of "how many" remains an unknown.
What about historical preservation issues? Are all buildings in the path of Central Park gonners? I went to David's computer and showed him new and old pics of the venerable 1909 International Harvester Building on S. Broadway, shown at the right. I don't recall that I showed him pics of the Film Exchange Building on S. Robinson. I also asked him about this Journal Record article in which it was reported that properties a block or so off the Core To Shore Phase 1 perimeter were being acquired by the city, which could include the International Harvester Building on Broadway.
Whip me if you want, but the only thing that I recall that David said about historic preservation issues is that the city had run out of money to be used for acquiring new properties. I think, but do not specifically recall, that he said that such issues could be addressed as MAPS 3 develops down the line, should it pass on December 8. David can correct me if I've said this wrong.
What about a timeline as to when this stuff will be constructed? Naturally enough, NOTHING can get started until some sales tax receipts are generated. But is there any sequence of when the various parts of MAPS 3 will be constructed?
David indicated that there was no timeline in place for beginning the 8 projects involved in MAPS 3 except that I think that he said that the downtown park would likely begin first, which is natural. But, officially, a timeline does not exist.
By an October 5 e-mail, David adds the following:
This is correct, but I would also add the Mayor has expressed a preference for the convention center to probably be staged last.
About The Fuzzy Ballot. Although we discussed this topic at length, that discussion is reported in a companion article, MAPS 3, The Actual vote.
That's as good an account of our conversation as I've got to give, except for this last important thing.
At one point in our discussion, perhaps when discussing ballot issues which are discussed here, I showed him a copy of the original MAPS ballot which, of course, itemized each of the original MAPS projects one at a time. Having a look at it, he said something like the following (not his words, but mine to capture the point that he was trying to make):
Wow. That's a lot of detail, "A baseball park meeting not less than 'AAA' professional baseball standards'; 'The improvement of the Myriad Convention Center and/or related facilities.'"
While those weren't the exact words that he used, he was clearly using polite sarcasm to make his point: The level of detail that I've complained about not being presented in MAPS 3 wasn't given in the original MAPS proposal, either. I think that it was then that a 15 watt oven-light-bulb turned on in my head — not a 150 watt dazzler but one which was nonetheless internally noticed.
As this revised article is being written, it has now been 7 days since the meeting with David Holt. When leaving, I told him that I would be thinking about what he had said. I have. As part of that process, I've also tried to put myself into my 1993 shoes when I checked the box in that ballot, "For the Proposition — Yes."
Doing my own self-critique, I have today, October 4, reached five conclusions:
I haven't changed my mind about the absence of public input since this past spring; it should have been provided for but wasn't.
As to the sufficiency of detail, I have placed greater demands upon the MAPS 3 proposition, and Mayor Cornett, than I did with the original MAPS, and Mayor Norick.
I have been wrong in doing so.
Sufficient detail has been provided by the city to reach a voting decision.
I can now remove the "probably" in earlier statements I've made such as, "I will in all probability be voting 'Yes'" since on December 8 I will be checking the box, "For the Ordinance — YES."
After the meeting, David sent an email (which he said that I could quote), as follows:
More detail is coming - maybe not as much as you had hoped, but it will be everything we have. And we believe that what we will ultimately present is the appropriate level of detail, based on previous MAPS customs and best practices. December 8 isn’t the end of the implementation and the public’s role in this process – it's the beginning of what will be a decade of more detailed decisions that this community will have to make – funneled through the citizen oversight board and your elected officials. That’s how MAPS and MAPS for Kids worked, and we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel with MAPS 3.
Again, I thank David, and his boss who surely must have authorized this meeting, for a very pleasant conversation.
Although out of chronological sequence, I thought that the foregoing matters should be covered first. Now, jump back to September 17 to begin the sequence of events which began on that day, beginning with Mayor Cornett's announcement.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT. Flanked by council members Gary Marrs (Ward 1), Pete White (Ward 4), Skip Kelley (Ward 7), Meg Salyer (Ward 6), and Sam Bowman (Ward 2), on September 17 Mayor Mick Cornett announced that the Maps 3 was ready and that it would be submitted to the City Council on September 22, less than a week later, and would presumably be voted upon on by the council September 29, a week after that. Additionally, letters of support for 2 council members not present were in hand from Larry McAtee (Ward 3) and Patrick Ryan (Ward 8). Only J. Brian Walters (Ward 5) was unaccounted for and who has since announced his opposition.
The Oklahoman's video of the press conference appears below. It begins after the point that the mayor greeted those in attendance and council members present were identified, as well as two others who could not be present but had issued letters of support, mentioned above. About a minute is lost in the Oklahoman's video and it doesn't present the graphics which were being shown as the mayor was speaking but it was all I could locate which could be embedded here. A complete video, but one which I was unable to embed, is at the Channel 9 website, should you want to see the whole thing.
An area of the city's website, www.okc.gov/maps3 popped up the new information on the same day. There, part of the text reads,
The initiative proposes a diverse list of eight projects:
A new, approximately 70-acre central park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River
A new rail-based streetcar system, plus potential funding for other rail transit initiatives, such as commuter lines and a transit hub
A new downtown convention center
Sidewalks to be placed on major streets and near facilities used by the public throughout the City
57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City
Improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world
State-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers throughout the City designed for senior citizens
Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds
"This proposal dreams big, and it continues the momentum and renaissance of the last 15 years," said Mayor Cornett. "I believe it will achieve the goals that have always defined MAPS projects – creating jobs and improving our quality of life. I think it recognizes the needs of the world-class city we are becoming, and I think it will capture our imaginations. If this initiative moves forward, the next 10 years of this City’s history will be more exciting than the last 10. We have hardly scratched the surface of what this City is capable."
The MAPS 3 proposal calls for a seven-year, nine-month one-cent sales tax that will maintain the Oklahoma City sales tax rate where it currently stands. Oklahoma City’s sales tax rate is one of the lowest of all municipalities in central Oklahoma. If approved, the collection of the sales tax will commence on April 1, 2010, the day after the conclusion of the sports facilities sales tax collection that voters approved in March, 2008. The MAPS for Kids sales tax collection lasted seven years.
The estimated total cost of the initiative is $777 million. That total cost includes $17 million in contingency funds.
The creation of previous MAPS packages were inclusive for their time, created through committees or by elected City leaders, but technology allowed this initiative to be molded by the people of Oklahoma City through the most inclusive process to date. In 2007, Mayor Cornett announced the launch of www.MAPS3.org, which for four months conducted a "call for ideas" open to all citizens.
MAPS 3 SUMMARY. The www.MAPS3.org website presents a summary of MAPS 3. My summary of the summary is as follows:
The Park. About 70 acres in a 2 block-wide swath from present I-40 to the new I-40, and then a 1-block area south to the Oklahoma River. The summary doesn't say, but the east/west boundaries are presumably the same as those contained in the Core To Shore Steering Committee's late 2007 final report, Robinson to Hudson on the north and Robinson to Harvey on the south. Estimated cost: $130 million
Transit. 5-6 miles of downtown rail street car and perhaps (the summary is vague) intermodal transit hub (somewhere) in downtown. The summary does not specify the route. Estimated cost: $130 million.
Convention Center. Aside from stating a rationale as to why the convention center is included, no details are stated, including location. Estimated cost: $280 million.
Sidewalks. The summary states that,
This project will strategically construct sidewalks in different areas of the city on major streets and near facilities used by the public (such as schools and libraries).
The summary does not say where. Estimated cost: $10 million.
Trails. The summary says, "This project will construct 57 new miles of bicycling and walking trails, all but completing Oklahoma City’s trails master plan." Presumably, one could look up that plan and find the locations. Estimated cost: $40 million.
The Oklahoma River. The summary reads,
This project will provide improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility, and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world. The whitewater facility is estimated to cost $25 million with the remaining $35 million to fund River improvements. Those improvements include grandstands, parking, Lincoln Bridge enhancements, a floating stage, river beautification, lighting and other improvements to the course itself.
What irony! Not so long ago, we had a river which was said to be the only river in the country which had to be mowed twice a year, and now the city is an internationally (and US Olympic-ally) recognized rowing venue. Estimated cost: $60 million.
Health & Wellness Aquatic Centers for Senior Citizens. Hey, I finally get a pool! "Multiple" (count 'em) centers will be constructed at locations "around the city." Estimated cost: $50 million.
State Fairgrounds. The summary reads,
This project will upgrade publicly-used facilities at the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds, especially those used by the public during the annual State Fair of Oklahoma. It will consolidate various structures that are in excess of 50 years old.
The summary does not identify any particulars. Estimated cost: $60 million.
About these items, each voter must form his/her own opinions, about projects individually and as a package deal. My own, largely important only to me, are shown below.
MAPS 3 ITEMS
Millions
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
1
Central Park
$130
$130
2
Modern Streetcars
130
130
3
Convention Center
280
280
4
Sidewalks
10
$10
5
Trails
40
40
6
Oklahoma River
60
60
7
Senior Health Centers
50
$50
8
Fairgrounds
60
50
9
Contingency Fund
17
17
Totals
$777
$617
$100
$50
RESOURCES TO HELP YOU THINK. While I've now arrived at my own decision, many of you have not and you may want something else to read. You'll get the city's side of things from its own MAPS 3 pages and from that of the Greater OKC Chamber, which is handling the MAPS 3 campaign, at this location.
But, for additional objective analysis (i.e., other than Doug Dawgz Blog), where might one look for stuff to read?
The Oklahoman. Objective reporting? Unlikely. Get real — who is the present Chairman of the Board of the Chamber (I generally like the Chamber and think it has done a lot of good for the city, just so that you'll know)? David Thompson. Who is heading up the Chamber's MAPS 3 campaign? David Thompson. See this video and Oklahoman article. Who is president of the OPUBCO Communications Group? David Thompson. When the Oklahoman publishes an article which objectively analyzes MAPS 3, such as those mentioned by the Oklahoma Gazette below, I'll be more than willing to acknowledge the error of my ways.
The Oklahoma Gazette. Objective reporting? Likely. This weekly publication has demonstrated a willingness to explore both sides of MAPS 3 issues. For example, as to the city's need for a new convention center, click here, and, unlike the Chamber which declined to release its own MAPS 3 polls, the Gazette and News 9 engaged Shapard Research to conduct a scientific poll, the results were fully released and published in the Gazette. As well, the Gazette recently published this article in which Mayor Cornett and others explained what is needed to be done between now and December 8.
The Journal Record. Objective reporting? Unknown. Although the Journal Record has an area set aside for Core To Shore, it has not yet done so for MAPS 3. As of this writing, the Journal Record hasn't reported much (if anything) about MAPS 3, though surely it will. One would suppose that editor Ted Streuli's blog, Hot Topic would eventually pick up and start discussing MAPS 3, but so far, MAPS 3 is a missing person there.
Of course, one expects to see and hear stories on the local radio and television media, but unless sound bites will help you reach a decision, not much in depth analysis should be expected there. Last time I checked, Oklahoma City does not have a local equivalent of the likes of NBC's Meet The Press or CBS's Sixty Minutes.
PARK PICS. I've extracted the 8 images in the PDF file showing views of Central Park. The extracted images are quite large (5400 px wide) so I've shrunk the kids for internet purposes. Click on any thumbnail below for a 1024 px wide rendering.
OTHER IMAGES. The "YES for MAPS coalition" opened its campaign yesterday by providing at least a peek at a few graphics representing some of the items -- the Chamber is leading the effort so I presume that it set up the coalition's website. Still not much detail is provided, but it's a start assuming that it is fair to draw reasonable inferences from the images. The website is http://www.yesformaps.com
I've done a screen capture of the images we've not seen before (I've not included the night-time fireworks shot over Central Park which we've already seen). Larger images are not presently available:
When additional renderings of elements of Maps 3's proposal, I'll add them here.
This article will be modified as MAPS 3 voting issues occur. The initial post was made on September 27, 2009; modified and completed on September 29, the 10:24 a.m. with various grammatical corrections after that. As expected, City Council voted about half an hour ago to submit MAPS 3 to a vote of the people on December 8, 2009. The only council member voting NOT to let the people vote on MAPS 3 was Ward 5 council member Brian Walters.
In another lengthy article, I tried as well as I was objectively able to present the pros and cons with regard to the on-the-table report of the Core To Shore Steering Committee to contribute to the discussion, and I'll not repeat the content of that article here. In a nutshell, that article presented the Steering Committee's late 2007 report for the purpose of understanding, discernment, and discussion at a time that, presumably, your and my input may have been a factor in shaping the final plan. And, in the MAPS 3 proposal, MAPS 3 is discussed as to it pragmatic content, again, without repetition here.
The focus of this article is/are procedural matters/decisions to be made by city council and by you and me, nothing more, nothing less, from this day forward. This article is not involved with your and my possible reasons for favoring or disfavoring MAPS 3 in the final vote. It is strictly related to procedure from this point forward until the vote is cast. The article contains and discusses the ballot and related documents which will be presented for our decision on December 8.
Note: I've OCR'ed the documents discussed discussed below (the Ballot, proposed Ordinance, and Resolution, and converted them to text. To read and/or print those documents, click here. Most are also set out below.
THE 1ST VOTE: CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. The 1st version of this article was written two days before the September 29 council meeting, and the City Council has now decided that MAPS 3 will be submitted for public vote on December 8. Council members Gary Marrs (Ward 1), Pete White (Ward 4), Skip Kelley (Ward 7), Meg Salyer (Ward 6), Sam Bowman (Ward 2), Larry McAtee (Ward 3) and Patrick Ryan (Ward 8) and Mayor Cornett voted Aye. Only J. Brian Walters (Ward 5) voted Nay.
Council member Walters wasn't even willing to let the people make their own decision on MAPS 3. So, as promised two days ago, Brian Walters is bestowed the Doug Dawgz Anti-Democracy Award for 2009, hopefully the last time that such a non-prestigious award ever be made.
It is fair enough for one to conclude that MAPS 3 should not be passed. Each of us are entitled to form our own opinions about that and cast our votes accordingly. But, WHETHER you and I get to participate in a democratic vote is an entirely different matter. The voters should hold the trump card, not a council member who would want to prevent that from happening.
BACKGROUND. City Council voted "Yea" on September 29 to approve matters then pending to submit MAPS 3 items to a vote of the people on December 8. But it comes in a different form than MAPS 1 did and this section attempts to explain why.
Oklahoma City's learning curve may have come from a 1986 capital improvements initiative by Mayor Andy Coats. Mayor Coats had described Oklahoma City's situation in bleak terms, and we certainly know that the period was a dark time for Oklahoma City, at least at night if one was downtown. The city was even losing population for the first time within anyone's memory. His "Six To Fix" campaign was an attempt to do something about that — among other things, it would have created a domed stadium at the fairgrounds. "Six To Fix" involved multiple ballots, one per proposed project with each project being voted on separately.
The only happy watch parties on the night of June 17 were in the "vote no" camps. Incomplete returns in the June 18 Oklahoman reflected that only police and fire department elements had been approved and that the big ticket items were substantially defeated. For example, the stadium proposal was failing by a vote of 40,753 to 17,409.
With 1993's MAPS, Mayor Norick was determined to take a different tack. Instead of multiple ballots, there would be only one — up or down, all or none. More, it would be the most bold and ambitious tax proposal ever to be submitted to Oklahoma City voters (at least, as far as I'm aware). Steve Lackmeyer and Jack Money's OKC: 2nd Time Around brilliantly and thoroughly describes Mayor Ron Norick's approach and how it succeeded — symphony and arts supporters who wanted upgrades to the Civic Center Music Hall were in common cause and league with sports supporters who wanted a Bricktown Ballpark and Sports Arena, and so on. Each group wound up being a cheerleader for the other. That approach worked and MAPS 1 passed 54% to 46%.
While the present MAPS 3 proposal takes the same general approach, there are differences, some perhaps all arising out of legal necessity.
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."
During a meeting I had on September 28 with David Holt, Mayor Cornett's Chief of Staff (which will be more particularly described in this related article on the actual Maps 3 Proposal), he was able to give me some leads pertaining to the legal issue alluded to above. I have no intention of making an in-depth study of the legal issues involved here — in the 1st place, I have no expertise in this area of the law, and, in the 2nd, legal issues are not what this article is about, even if I did. But I did peruse the case of Fent v. State ex Rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, a 2009 Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision, as well as some of the references mentioned in that case, and I am more than reasonably satisfied that a ballot like that contained in original MAPS would not likely withstand legal challenge today — at the least, I take and accept that conclusion as a given.
The nub seems to be, at least at the state (Oklahoma Legislature or initiative referendum) level, an "all or none" approach is not OK. That general method is referred to as "logrolling" in the cases. Paragraph 14 of the above cited Fent case reads as follows:
¶14 Art. 5, §57 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: "Every act of the Legislature shall express but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. . . ." This provision is commonly known as the "single subject rule." The purposes of the single subject rule are: 1) to ensure that the legislators or voters of Oklahoma are adequately notified of the potential effect of the legislation; and 2) to prevent "logrolling," the practice of assuring the passage of a law by creating one choice in which a legislator or voter is forced to assent to an unfavorable provision to secure passage of a favorable one, or conversely, forced to vote against a favorable provision to ensure that an unfavorable provision is not enacted. The single subject rule applies to legislative acts promulgated through the initiative process, as well as those promulgated through the Legislature.
For much more about "logrolling," see the 1993 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. White, beginning at ¶7. Although the just cited cases pertain, strictly speaking, to state legislation and initiative petition measures, I nonetheless take it as a given — but without researching the matter further and knowing with certainty — that the same types of rules pertain to revenue measures of political subdivisions, e.g., cities such as Oklahoma City, since it would be senseless for one set of rules to apply to state-level revenue measures and a different set of rules to apply to political subdivisions, e.g., cities such as Oklahoma City. In my very shallow research, I did see that Oklahoma Constitution, Article 10, §19, provides that
Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which said tax is levied, and no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose.
As a practical matter, the bottom line is that the city would likely have followed the original MAPS model if it thought that it could do so, given that model's history of success in our city.
So, while the 1993 MAPS ballot was long and detailed, each item being particularly identified, the 2009 MAPS 3 ballot reads quite differently.
Below is a hard-to-read version of the 1993 MAPS ballot, followed by the ballot MAPS 3. The image below is from the December 13, 1993, Oklahoman. Click on the graphic for a more readable version.
As you can see, the original MAPS ballot was quite long and itemized each project and contained these words of limitation and oversight:
* * * providing that said additional limited-term excise tax may be expended only for the following limited purposes (the "main projects"): * * * * * * providing for a citizens oversight board to review and make recommendations regarding expenditures of tax monies collected under Ordinance No. 20,045; * * *
Compare the 1993 ballot with that which will be utilized in the 2009 election, which is much more general in its content:
The Proposed Ordinance. The above ballot is only a snapshot, a brief summary, of the much lengthier proposed ordinance No. 23,942.
The ballot reads, in part,
The Ordinance [No. 23,942] defines the term "City capital improvement." The Ordinance states expenditures to provide City capital improvements may include expenditures for any or all items(s), article(s), cost(s), or expense(s) related in any way to providing a City capital improvement. The Ordinance creates the "Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax Fund."
Go to the actual proposed ordinance and see that "City capital improvement" receives considerable attention:
§ 52-23.4. Excise tax on gross receipts for funding City capital improvements. * * * (c) For purposes of this section, the, term "City capital improvement" shall mean without limitation any one or more of the following:
(1) The acquisition of real or personal properties or any interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or
(2) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, finishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, or maintenance of City buildings, structures, fixtures, or personal properties or on any City real properties or interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or
(3) Any other type of beneficial or valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, or amelioration of or upon any real property, or any interest therein or appurtenances thereto, belonging to the City, intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it to new or further purposes.
(d) Expenditures to provide City capital improvements under this section may include expenditures for any or all item(s), article(s), cost(s), or expense(s) related in any way to providing a City capital improvement, including without limitation the following:
(1) Payment of the costs of acquiring real or personal properties or interests therein and appurtenances thereto;
(2) Payment of the costs of construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, furnishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, and maintenance;
(3) Payment of architectural costs, engineering costs, or consulting costs;
(4) Payment of project management costs, administrative costs, and legal costs;
(5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a City capital improvement;
(6) Reimbursements or paybacks for expenditures made by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement; and/or
(7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement.
(e) Pursuant to authority of 68 O.S. § 2701(B), there is hereby created a limited-purpose fund to be known as the "Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax Fund" (hereinafter the "Fund") into which all revenues collected pursuant to Subsection 52-23.4(a) above shall be deposited. Money in the Fund shall be accumulated from year-to-year. The Fund shall be placed in an insured interest-bearing account and the interest that accumulates on the Fund shall be retained in the Fund. The Fund shall be non-fiscal and shall not be considered in computing any levy when the City makes its estimate to the Excise Board for needed appropriations. Money in the Fund shall be expended only as accumulated and only for the limited-purpose specified in Subsection 52-23.4(b) above.
(f) The excise tax levied pursuant to Subsection 52-23.4(a) above shall be for a limited term of seven years and nine months, beginning at 12.00 a.m. on April 1, 2010, and ending at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2018.
(g) For the purpose of advising the City Council regarding projects proposed for funding from the excise tax levied by this section, the City Council shall by resolution establish a Citizens Capital Improvements Sales Tax Advisory Board. The Board's function shall be to review any such proposed project and submit recommendations to the City Council regarding the project.
Without more, and assuming the legal validity of both the ballot and the ordinance, passage of the ordinance would give the city carte blanch authority to apply and utilize the $777 million projected to be received via the MAPS 3 vote in any way that it might occasionally decide by adopting a new Resolution which modified the first. As long as the definition of "City capital improvement" was satisfied, it would be within the city council's power to do that.
Given that I am such a fan of Oklahoma City, the city might well decide to honor that fact by using an itty-bitty piece of that $777 million by constructing a very cool public swimming pool in Mesta Park, just two blocks west of where I live! Way Cool!
But, no, you wouldn't like that, would you? You would want the $777 million to be expended for the items explicitly outlined by the mayor and council in the MAPS 3 overall proposal. And so would I (the possible exception being the cool pool in Mesta Park).
So where's the safeguard that the $777 million will actually be expended for the explicit purposes that the city tells us the money will be spent to construct?
SAFEGUARDS. Actually, there are two: (1) a Citizens Capital Improvements Sales Tax Advisory Board; and (2) the resolution which accompanies the other documents.
Citizens Capital Improvements Sales Tax Advisory Board. The proposed ordinance includes the following paragraph:
(g) For the purpose of advising the City Council regarding projects proposed for funding from the excise tax levied by this section, the City Council shall by resolution establish a Citizens Capital Improvements Sales Tax Advisory Board. The Board's function shall be to review any such proposed project and submit recommendations to the City Council regarding the project.
As is plain from the language, the advisory board has no power of decision. Its functions are limited to (a) review and (b) recommendation. It might be a good thing to have an Eric Groves and/or a Kirk Humphreys type of guy on this committee, I'm thinking. But, that's just me.
The Accompanying Resolution. Taking it as a 1st given that the MAPS 3 ballot and ordinance may not be the "logrolling" type discussed above, and taking it as a 2nd given that the city still opts for the general collective "up or down" approach of the original MAPS championed by Mayor Ron Norick, what's a mothercity to do? The 1986 "Six to Fix" item-by-item campaign was, substantially, a disaster. Conversely, the 1993 MAPS initiative take-it-or-leave-it all-or-none approach turned out to accomplish a true and non-debatable miracle for our city.
How can the original MAPS approach be duplicated today given the legal constraints discussed above? Put differently, is there a way around the "logrolling" legal problem discussed above?
Maybe. Possible legal challenges will ultimately answer the above question. But, for now, the city has put together a logrolling work-around (1) by crafting a general ordinance which identifies no particular project but only defines the term, "City capital improvement," and (2) by crafting a simultaneous City Council Resolution which commits the city to utilizing the MAPS 3 tax receipts for the purposes which have been publicly identified in the overall MAPS 3 proposal, those projects being identified in the Resolution.
My guess, given the existence of what some might call ombudsmen like Jerry Fent (who has been involved in at least 26 Oklahoma Supreme Court cases as a taxpayer litigant that I could quickly locate), is that if MAPS 3 passes it will face immediate legal challenge before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. I offer no outcome prediction should that occur, but it would be foolhardy not to anticipate and expect that such challenge, given what I've already said above, would be made.
The accompanying Resolution reads as follows (underscoring in the Resolution is added):
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE PRESENT INTENT AND RESOLVE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY REGARDING THE "MAPS 3 PROGRAM" TO BE FUNDED WITH THE "OKLAHOMA CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SALES TAX" LEVIED PURSUANT TO SECTION 52-23.4 OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 52 OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, 2007; STATING THE COUNCIL'S INTENT AND RESOLVE REGARDING THE CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MAPS 3 PROGRAM; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE MAPS 3 PROGRAM UPON APPROVAL OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SALES TAX LEVY BY CITY VOTERS ON DECEMBER 8, 2009.
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2009, the voters of The City of Oklahoma City will be voting on the proposed levy of the "Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax," a seven-years and nine-months limited-purpose excise tax of one percent (1%) enacted by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City pursuant to City Ordinance No. 23,942; and
WHEREAS, upon its approval by City voters on December 8, 2009, the Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax levy will provide funding for City capital improvements within The City of Oklahoma City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to use the Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax revenues to continue the exceptional "Metropolitan Area Projects" initiative begun in 1993 by Mayor Ronald J. Norick and continued in 2001 by Mayor Kirk Humphreys; and
WHEREAS, the MAPS initiative is visibly transforming key parts of The City of Oklahoma City to the benefit of the citizens of this great community, including but not limited to Bricktown and adjacent areas, the Oklahoma River, the State Fairgrounds, and numerous public schools and public school facilities that are located in the Greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area and that are attended by City-resident students; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires at this time to set forth its present intent and resolve to use the revenues generated by the Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax levy to fund the continuation of the exceptional MAPS initiative begun in 1993 and to implement a new City capital improvements program to be known as the "MAPS 3 Program;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council's intent and resolve is for the MAPS 3 Program to include the implementation of all of the City capital improvement projects listed on Exhibit A attached to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the details regarding the City capital improvement projects included in the MAPS 3 Program shall, at appropriate times in the future, be determined by the City Council following recommendations regarding said projects to be submitted to the City Council by the "Citizens Capital Improvements Sales Tax Advisory Board," as required by Ordinance No. 23,942.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City does hereby express its present intent and resolve to use the revenues generated by the Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax to fund the MAPS 3 Program, with the City capital improvement projects to be included in the MAPS 3 Program listed on Exhibit A attached to this Resolution.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the details regarding the City capital improvement projects included in the MAPS 3 Program shall, at appropriate times in the future, be determined by the City Council following recommendations regarding said projects to be submitted to the City Council by the Citizens Capital Improvements Sales Tax Advisory Board, as required by Ordinance No. 23,942.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MAPS 3 Program shall be subject to the provisions of Section 38-488 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code, 2007, relating to the budgeting of public funds for works of art and for the selection and placement of works of art upon property owned by the City.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of The City of Oklahoma City is directed to take all necessary administrative actions to implement the MAPS 3 Program upon approval of the Oklahoma City Capital Improvements Sales Tax levy by City voters on December 8, 2009.
I guess you caught that "present intent and resolve" part, right? Put differently, City Council could, should it wish, change, delete, substitute, abandon, each and every item contained in Exhibit A which follows, and it would be completely legal.
The Resolution could have been made a little tougher by including a requirement that a generous supply of tar and feathers be made publicly available and accessible at all times, should Council unwisely make such a choice.
Here's Exhibit A to the above Resolution:
EXHIBIT A THE MAPS 3 PROGRAM
The intended MAPS 3 projects include the following —
A new large, downtown public park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River, with the park to be generally in accordance with the Core To Shore framework plan.
A new rail-based streetcar system to service the inner city and/or to service other areas within The City of Oklahoma City, plus funding for other transit infrastructure as appropriate, such as connections to other rail-based systems and/or a transit hub.
A new downtown convention center, to include exhibit halls, meeting rooms, ballrooms, mixed uses, and parking.
A series of strategically-placed sidewalks on arterial streets and near public use facilities within The City of Oklahoma City.
Improvements and/or enhancements to the Oklahoma City public trails system.
Additional facilities, equipment, improvements, and/or enhancements related to the recreational use of the Oklahoma River, including but not necessarily limited to the following items:
1) New public whitewater kayaking facilities and equipment; and
2) New grandstands and other rowing venue enhancements.
New health, wellness, and aquatic centers designed for senior citizens.
Improvements and/or enhancements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds.
CONCLUSION. In a nutshell, the method described above places a great deal, a very great deal, of public trust in the City Council and Advisory Board, not just this year or the next but during the entire span of 7 years and 9 months time.
Members of council will come and go before the time fully passes. Should the citizenry decide to pass MAPS 3, we actually don't want the city to decide, later, to chuck parts of MAPS 3 which are being sold to us today, do we. That's a rhetorical question.
While I would have preferred a "long ballot" with all of the projects identified in it with an all-or-nothing vote like MAPS 1 was, since "logrolling" is apparently no longer legally allowed, that was not a possibility.
I'm willing to take the risk and do the handshake deal, but I also think that we should make sure that the supply of tar and feathers isn't allowed to get too cold, should they become needed — that, and get an Eric Groves and a Kirk Humphreys on the Advisory Board, as well. Fair enough? Fair enough.
That's pretty much all there is to say unless I think of something to add later.
It's been much too heavy lately focusing in on MAPS 3 lately and it was high time for a break. My head has been hurting — I'm not fond of doing political posts and taking issue with city leaders that I like and admire. I needed a break.
A monthly meeting today of the OkcTalk.com Southsider group gave just such an opportunity. These guys and gals know how to have fun and they love to talk about history. Largely, these Southsiders hang out in the Nostalgia & Memories area of OkcTalk.com but they also meet monthly at Coits on South Western. Although I don't have my Southsider photo ID yet (as a Northsider, I'm on the waiting list), I was at yesterday's meeting. After the meeting, I was driving east on Reno from May Avenue and arrived at the Pennsylvania intersection. It was then that the sign below — and I'm not kidding — started doing funny things ...
... click on the sign if you don't believe me ...
I accepted the sign's invitation and by doing so I became one of the first drivers on the new I-40 crosstown. Yes, I did have my camera in hand. Come along for the ride, if you want. A STREET SIGN sign is talking to me? Sure, why not — I've seen (and enjoyed) the movie L.A. Story so I already knew that road signs are capable of having personalities and, sometimes, even wisdom, musical and magical capabilities — even if this sign was puny by comparison to the L.A. Story sign. No disrespect intended, Reno/Penn sign, but you're young yet and, after all, you didn't play Do Wah Diddy, did you?
The Southsiders group met yesterday afternoon at Coits at 2500 S. Western, and I was there. After the meeting, Generals 64 (I call him Bob) led me and Prunepicker to the remnants of the "Sandtown" community — a poverty stricken but proud area during the Great Depression and later — it was located around May Avenue and the North Canadian River. Bob had already showed me where the huge Phillips gas plant was located in far south Oklahoma City, a very big deal in the 1930s and 1940s (which will be the subject of a Trains article whenever I get around to it) and where the 1st Oklahoma City canal was located (well, not exactly — but it was a heck of an interesting story — see this earlier article about that). Seeing the Sandtown remnant, I proceeded east on Reno toward my Mesta Park home.
That's when I encountered the sign at Reno & Penn, and, as I said, I accepted the sign's invitation to "Come On In." Here's what I saw.
In the following, click on an image for a larger view.
Between Penn & Western, only roadbeds and bridgework have been done. This view looks east to the Pennsylvania bridge.
Pennsylvania Bridge Detail from I-40
Another bridge, not sure which one ... Western?
Notice downtown peeping through the bridge
A closer look at the sidings which show what a driver would see
Dirt, Dirt, Lots of Dirt
A Sign-maker Is Prepared (Doubtless of the Do Wah Diddy class)
Looks too small for Western ... maybe Blackwelder?
Driving An Up Ramp To The Above Bridge
Looking South On The Above Bridge
Bridge Pillars On The Above Bridge
I thought I might be the 1st to make this drive. Nope. Darn Southsiders beat me to it!
The last trick was to figure out how to get out of the place. It wasn't easy. Ahh ... the Pennsylvania sign!
What's the best source for researching Oklahoma City History? That's easy — it's the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library System, MLS for short.
And much of it is available in your own home, or in your hotel room while you're traveling — anywhere you have a a computer and internet availability.
Some parts are available to anyone. For some of the best research tools, though, all you need to know is your MLS library card and your own last name. This brief article gets you started in seeing how to use some of the great resources of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library System. To get you started, I've put together a little flash slide show. Although it runs by itself, with between 5 and 10 seconds between each slide, it contains controls to pause, move forward or backward, as you chose. Due to width and height limitations in this blogger format, three of the pages are hard to read, but a "Larger" button is available on those pages click on the button and the slide show will pause and the page will open in a separate window or tab for a larger view.
This article does not develop the history of the downtown library — click here for that. It does not particularly show how to use the Oklahoman's archives — click here for that. It does not show you how to use the Sanborn Maps feature — click here for that. The focus of this article is to point you to areas in the Metropolitan Library System that will be helpful in your Oklahoma City history research — Internet Links, below, and The Oklahoma Room at the end of this article.
INTERNET LINKS. For that, here are some MLS internet links that you may want to bookmark:
MLS Home Page. From here, most if not all of the other items listed below can be located, even though the more direct links will get you there more quickly. However, for the numerous MLS areas and items (e.g., calendar of events, downloadable audio books area) which are not listed below, start at the MLS home page.
Library Member Logon Page. If you are a card carrying member of the Metropolitan Library System, this is your first stop before accessing the external commercial databases which MLS gives you free access to, e.g., the Oklahoman archives and the Sanborn Maps.
MLS library cards are free for qualifying persons. Generally, that includes those who live in or own property in Oklahoma City or Oklahoma County and, via a reciprocal service agreement with the Pioneer Library System headquartered in Norman, those who live, work, or attend school in Cleveland, McClain or Pottawatomie counties and for Blanchard school district students living in Grady County. Go here for more particulars.
The two commercial databases that I use regularly are the Oklahoman archives and Sanborn Maps, below.
Oklahoman archives. There is no direct link for this. After logon, click the Databases menu item and then click the Newspaper tab. On the page that opens, click on Oklahoman Electronic Archives. For detailed instructions, click here.
Sanborn Maps. There is no direct link for this. After logon, click the Databases menu item and then click the Oklahoma tab. On the page that opens, click on Sanborn Maps. For detailed instructions, click here. Buddy Johnson also advises that, in addition to these on-line versions, the downtown library also has original microfilm which is much more legible, very large size and can be printed on 11 x 17 inch paper. A very high resolution image can also be obtained from the Sanborn map PDF files but only if you have a full version of Acrobat (or a similar program, but not Reader) since in such a program you have the option of extracting images in PDF files and saving them to a TIF (best) or other graphic format. The images so extracted from a Sanborn map file are typically 5100 x 6088 pixels at 600 dpi, which ain't too shabby. After extraction, it becomes possible to crop an image to suit your needs.
Oklahoma Images. Although this area can also be accessed via the databases after member logon, it's not necessary to do that since this area is not restricted to library members. Here, images of the city's past, as well as essays on many different topics, can be searched for, seen and read.
Oklahoma Folklore Collection. Like Oklahoma Images, this database collection is available to non-MLS members. I didn't include anything about this in the above slide show, so here's a graphic showing this area's portal page — click the image for a larger view:
The fine print at the top reads, "The Oklahoma Folklore Collection is the result of an effort by the Metropolitan Library System in the late 1940's and early 1950's to collect and preserve the stories, memories, and songs that make up Oklahoma's rich folk tradition. Inside you will find stories, songs letters, interviews, poems, sheet music, brochures, and much more that brings to light Oklahoma History as it was being created. Along with the transcribed documents you will find an image of the original document."
info Magazine. This is MLS's monthly magazine. It always contains an interesting Oklahoma City history article (usually if not always written by Larry (Buddy) Johnson) — the above slide show presents 3 of them. As well, the magazine contains other interesting articles and the MLS monthly calendar of events which is quite extensive. The files are PDF files which require a recent version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader (my old 5.0.1 version of the full Acrobat program cannot read them but after installing the latest version of the Reader, all went well).
Videos About Oklahoma Images. The introductory text at this page reads, "For years you could view the Oklahoma Images collection of photographs chronicling the history of central Oklahoma on our website. But now hear the stories that go with them. Downtown librarian and historian Larry Johnson has written the stories behind these fascinating pictures, while local attorney/historian Bob Burke tells the tale. Check back with us every few weeks for new Oklahoma Images stories and read 'Oklahoma Images' every month in our magazine, info." Click on the following graphic for a larger view of the videos that are presently available:
Unfortunately, I've not yet been able to view any of these videos. My understanding is that they are WMV files and that a late version of Microsoft's Windows Media Player is required. But, I have the latest version of that program on two of my computers and neither computer can read the files. Hopefully, that problem will be addressed by MLS's technical team in the near future.
Oklahoma County Building Index. This nifty MLS feature is hard to find but it's in the in-house database area. Click the graphic below for a larger view.
The text at the top of that page reads, "This index provides access to photographs of buildings erected in the county from it earliest days to the present. Because of copyright issues, this database does not exhibit the photos themselves, but rather indicates in which materials the photos can be found. All materials indexed are held in the collections of the Metropolitan Library System; see the CyberMARS catalog for details. Many pictures are also available in Oklahoma Images."
Doing a search for "Braniff" shows what is returned — click the image below for a better view.
What is initially presented, then, is an "abstract." By clicking the building name, a more detailed report appears:
Braniff Building Building Name: Braniff Building Building Name2: Kerr-McGee Building Building Name3: Three Twenty-Four Building Street Address: 324 North Broadway City: Oklahoma City State: OK Neighborhood: Downtown Architect: Solomon A. Layton Architectural Firm: Layton, Hicks, and Forsythe Construction Firm: Construction Date: 1923 Owner/Tenant: Thomas E. Braniff; Braniff Airlines Photo Date: Format: Book Source: PLBOC, p.56; VSII plate 192 Notes: Subject: Office Buildings
My only criticism of the Oklahoma County Building Index database/feature is that there does not appear to be an "index" of the Index so that a list of included buildings is presented at a glance. That would be handy to have, particularly since the page's name includes the word, "Index." One has to know/remember the name of a building to search for it and a single list would be particularly helpful for those having not-the-best memory brain cells like me! That said, it's a handy resource and well worth having. A work-around to the absence of a list is to type, "OK," as the item to search for and 300 Abstracts are returned, which I take to be number of items in the database. You can also search by street (spell out the numbered streets) or by address.
THE OKLAHOMA ROOM. The above gives internet links for MLS internet-available research. Alas, not everything is available on-line (yet). That's where the Oklahoma Room on the 2nd floor of the downtown Ronald J. Norick Library & Learning Center comes in handy.
The Oklahoma Room contains the MLS collection of quality books and other documents (e.g., old plats, maps, etc.) which specifically focus on Oklahoma (and Oklahoma City). Often those books are rare and out-of-print and they are often fundamentally important when a researcher is looking for detail about numerous Oklahoma City history topics.
This room is not generally available but it does have availability at the following times:
Monday through Thursday: 1:30 pm - 4:30 pm
Other times by appointment — call 606-3872
Below are a few pics taken September 22, 2009, inside the Oklahoma Room. My host was Larry (Buddy) Johnson who maintains the room and under whose guidance, often pen, research of Oklahoma City history by the MLS is done. Above, you will have noticed that he writes brief Oklahoma City history articles in each info magazine and that his lengthier essays are found in MLS's Oklahoma Images database.
He should have a grander title than "librarian," so Doug Dawg will given him one — MLS Okc History Boss-Man. I fully expect that those who work with him to begin calling him that right away! About Buddy, info Magazine says,
Larry "Buddy" Johnson has been with MLS since 1998. Not only a librarian at the Downtown Library, he is the brilliant mind behind the Oklahoma Images database which is a collection of pictures and essays that illustrate the history of central Oklahoma.
Below, click on a thumbnail image for a larger view
Inside looking east
Looking southwest
Looking southeast at the rare maps and plats placeholders; at right, Buddy displays a plat book of early Oklahoma City.
Buddy is the author of Historic Photos of Oklahoma City (Turner Publishing Company 2007). At left, below, he proudly holds his baby. The occasion for my presence was a meeting of an as yet secret society in the process of formation — I am forbidden to tell you that it has to do with — oops! Almost did! At right below are two additional friends and co-conspirators, one new and one old. The lady is the new friend, Carolyn D. Cuskey, Coordinator & History Professor, Rose State College and its Atkinson Heritage Center; the guy at the right is old friend Steve Lackmeyer, co-author with Jack Money of OKC: 2nd Time Around (Full Circle Press 2007), author of Bricktown (Arcadia Publishing 2009), and co-author with Jack Money of the soon to be published The Skirvin (Full Circle Books 2009).
After these photos were taken, a meeting was held in a secret room by the secret group. During that, I noticed a cool photo on the wall — sorry that it's got camera glare in it but it's still worthwhile publishing — a rare photo of the old downtown Frisco depot in 1914. The second is a crop of the first. Click on either for a larger view.
Operation Scissortail - Our Latest Book!
-
[image: devon book cover]
We are very happy to announce the release of our latest book, "Operation
Scissortail," a narative history of the construction o...
Saturday in the Park..on a 113 degree day
-
For those who don't know, there is a reason I've gone very quiet at such a
pivotal moment for Downtown OKC. I accepted a position in Cleveland, Ohio
and I...
Here, I'll try to present in an organized and coherent manner (my notes lack that quality — he allowed me to jump around and ask about stuff as it occurred to me to think of it) that Mayor Cornett's Chief of Staff had to say. 
Posts
