[OKC] Not this MAPS! Social justice and sustainability issues with an OKC ballot proposal

[brian hammond]

Robert:   Your points are well taken.   

However, as one who left OKC in 1960 at the ripe age of 14 only to return for a business meeting in 1990 after living in LA, San Fran, NY, and DC, you have to admit that OKC (especially downtown) wasnt very pretty.

Now, twenty years later I have decided to retire in OKC thanks to the quality of life brought on by the first sets of MAPS.  My wife and I tried downtown but now are living in a nearby neighborhood where one can enjoy the benefits of downtown without sharing a wall with somebody in an apartment/condomenium.

My point is that if OKC had not delivered on the earlier MAPS proposals, this one would in no way get my vote.  However, that has not been the case.
Sometimes you simply have to trust people (even politicians) to do the right thing.  If everything promised in MAPS 3 is delivered in the same manner as MAPS 1 and 2, we should be very happy.  I see no reason why it would not be.   

In the meantime, the neighborhoods and suberbs need to make it clear that MAPS 4 is for them.

Please accept this response as it was intended and that is as a citizen wishing the best for the city he was born in and has now come back to retire in.

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, Robert Waldrop <bwaldrop at cox.net> wrote:

> From: Robert Waldrop <bwaldrop at cox.net>
> Subject: [OKC] Not this MAPS! Social justice and sustainability issues with an OKC ballot proposal
> To: "Sustainable Oklahoma City" <okc at sustainableokc.org>
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 2:57 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Below are my thoughts on the upcoming
> MAPS 3 vote in
> Oklahoma City, as published today in my blog at
> http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=211
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Waldrop, Oklahoma City
> 
> 
> 
> NOT THIS MAPS! We can do better!
> 
> 
> 
> I have delayed publishing this because I really wanted to
> support the
> MAPS 3 proposals. I have been hoping that more and better
> information
> would be made available, but the City’s campaign
> seems to be all sizzle
> and no steak.
> 
> 
> 
> Below are my concerns about the MAPS 3 proposal, as it is
> presented at
> this time.  Advocates of sustainability, social
> justice, and good
> governance must weigh the pros and cons of the various
> projects to
> determine if, all things considered, a “yes”
> vote for MAPS 3 is
> warranted.  At this point, with the information we
> have, I am voting
> against the MAPS 3 proposals, and I encourage others to do
> the same. 
> We can do much better than the MAPS 3 proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  No Assurance of Project Completion.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no assurance that the announced MAPS 3 projects
> will actually
> be completed.  The specific projects will not appear
> on the ballot,
> instead, we will vote on a generic grant of authority to
> the City
> Council to keep the sales tax where it is and spend the
> money on
> unspecified projects.
> 
> 
> 
> The resolution concerning the projects is non-binding and
> could be
> changed at any time by this or a future City
> Council.   Some or all of
> these projects could be cancelled or replaced with other
> “priorities”.
> 
> 
> 
> The City is doing this to avoid having to list each project
> as a
> separate ballot issue, which would allow voters to pick and
> choose
> among the projects. Giving the City a blank check for
> hundreds of
> millions of dollars is not a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The City is being stingy with info.
> 
> 
> 
> The vote is rapidly approaching, yet there is almost
> nothing other than
> fluff at the City’s website,  The
> Oklahoman’s editors are firmly in
> favor of MAPS 3. The Gazette seems to have the best
> reporting I’ve
> seen, it’s one of the few places where questions are
> being asked about
> “operating costs”, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> The only local source collecting  “all the MAPS
> 3 news” is the Doug
> Dawgz blog, who is doing a fantastic job collecting the
> meager info
> about the MAPS 3 vote, at  
> http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Among the most important unanswered questions are –
> 
> +  How will the projects be staged?  Which will
> be first?  Last?
> 
> 
> 
> The only clue thus far is a statement by the Mayor at a Nov
> 16 Chamber
> of Commerce luncheon that the park would be “first
> priority”.   
> http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html
> (Scroll
> down to the Nov 16th report.)
> 
> 
> 
> + If revenue estimates fall short due to continued economic
> instability, which projects get cut?  Although the
> question has been
> asked at the City council, no clear answer was
> forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> + Regarding revenue estimates . . . the city’s
> website notes that
> previous revenue estimates came very close to the actual
> receipts, but
> the website does not disclose the methodology to produce
> the MAPS 3
> revenue estimates.  “Showing their work”,
> as our math teachers used to
> demand, would help build confidence in their revenue
> estimates.
> 
> 
> 
> + What about operating revenues for the convention center,
> river
> amenities, transit, park, senior citizens centers,
> etc?  Will other
> city expenses have to be cut to pay for these new unfunded
> operating
> expenses?
> 
> 
> 
> The designer for the park says some city revenues will be
> needed for
> park operations, but apparently no projected budget
> presently exists
> nor are the future fiscal demands on the city known at this
> time. 
> http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html
> .Scroll
> down to the report of the Oct 29 Chamber of Commerce
> luncheon and the
> remarks of Mary Margaret Jones of Hargreaves Associates.
> 
> 
> 
> A Nov 4th article in the Gazette says that the city manager
> has agreed
> to absorb $2 million/year in operational costs for the
> downtown
> streetcar system into the regular city budget.  If
> there is an estimate
> on the entire operations budget, nobody is saying anything
> about it
> thus far.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding operations costs of the senior wellness/aquatic
> centers, an
> article in the Nov. 11th Oklahoma City Gazette says that no
> budget
> presently exists for the centers. http://tinyurl.com/yhkr937
> 
> 
> 
> This lack of attention to the details of operating costs
> seems
> extremely irresponsible. These days, no one in the private
> sector would
> be able to get funding for capital projects without an
> operations
> budget and a plan for financing the operations.  No
> bank would loan a
> business money on the vague promise that “we will
> have a budget” and
> “we will get the money”.
> 
> 
> 
> + Is there a map of the proposed trail system?  Is it
> configured so
> that it could facilitate bicycle commuting or is it
> strictly a
> recreational program?
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Equity Issues.
> 
> 
> 
> MAPS 3 has some very real social justice and equity issues.
> Will MAPS 3
> accelerate the process of gentrifying/improving the
> city’s central
> areas – at the cost of driving the de-gentrification
> of suburban
> areas?  MAPS 3 programs $600 million in downtown
> spending, and only
> $160 million elsewhere in the city.  No transit
> dollars are programmed
> for the suburbs. Dollars spent gentrifying the central city
> areas can’t
> be used to support low income and middle class areas
> elsewhere in the
> city. Oklahoma City’s  MAPS 3 may therefore
> increase the risk of
> de-gentrifying areas of the city that are not served by
> transit and are
> not conveniently located for access to the “new and
> improved” downtown
> area.  This should be of particular concern to voters
> and property
> owners in the city’s suburban areas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is evident that transportation decisions have enormous
> impacts on
> city development.  The extension of early trolley car
> lines
> jump-started the growth of the City’s first suburbs
> – neighborhoods we
> know today as Gatewood, Mesta Park, etc. In the 60s and
> 70s, the
> construction of freeways and Northwest Expressway enabled a
> new
> generation of suburbs far away from downtown.  This
> reflected the cheap
> energy and automobile orientation of the late 20th
> century.  But
> nothing stays the same. The 21st century is an era of
> higher energy
> prices bringing new interest in public transportation
> options.
> 
> 
> 
> In the 21st century, neighborhoods served by public
> transportation have
> significant advantages over neighborhoods without access to
> public
> transit. The concentration of MAPS 3 transportation dollars
> in the
> City’s central core will drive housing
> decisions.  More people buying
> downtown and in the central city mean fewer people
> interested in houses
> in the suburban areas.  It also displaces lower income
> people from the
> areas close to downtown. That is a process that can drive
> de-gentrification in suburban areas.  Look at the rest
> of the world –
> the slums are in the suburbs, not the central city areas.
> 
> 
> 
> The decision to go for a central city trolley system,
> without any
> improvements elsewhere in the city, means that it will
> likely be ten
> years before a significant upgrade in the rest of the
> city’s transit
> systems will be considered.  Given the volatility of
> oil prices, ten
> years is too long to wait,.
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Convention Center.
> 
> 
> 
> The proposed new convention center is a great 20th century
> idea. 
> Unfortunately, this is the 21st century and we need 21st
> century ideas,
> not old, tired, “everybody’s doing it so we
> have to” ideas from the
> 20th century. Many questions remain unanswered. Do the Ford
> and Cox
> buildings have operating deficits? Will the new convention
> center make
> a profit or will it need an annual subsidy?  If so,
> where will that
> subsidy come from?
> 
> 
> 
> The City brags about tourism jobs, but the fact of that
> matter is that
> tourism jobs are hospitality industry jobs and that means
> “low-paid
> jobs with few or no benefits.”  Do we really
> want to give such a major
> subsidy to an industry characterized by low paid and
> part-time work? 
> According to Roy Williams of the OKC Chamber of Commerce,
> the new
> convention center will create 1100 jobs.  At $280
> million for the
> convention center, this is a cost of $254,000 per low-wage
> job. Will
> the contractors at the new convention center obey the law
> and collect
> and pay taxes on the incomes of their workers?  Or
> will they, as is
> sometimes the case with contractors for events at our
> existing
> facilities, pay workers cash and thus cheat them and the
> government of
> taxes and Social Security/Medicare contributions?
> (NB:  I spoke with a
> low-income worker last week who confirmed that when he
> works temp jobs
> at city facilities, taxes are not withheld from his
> paycheck and his
> employer does not pay social security taxes on his wages.)
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of investing in a new convention center, we would
> be ahead
> financially if that money was instead invested in a
> comprehensive area
> transit system that would allow families to save thousands
> of dollars
> in commuting costs and reduce pollution and damage to our
> city’s
> streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  Police and Fire-fighter concerns.  
> 
> 
> 
> The police and fire-fighter unions have expressed concerns
> about public
> safety being under-funded at the cost of expanding economic
> development
> (a/k/a socialism for the politically well-connected). 
> There can be no
> doubt that in recent years the city has neglected its
> infrastructure
> responsibilities.  Projects from previous bond issues
> remain
> uncompleted, public safety personnel positions are being
> cut even as
> the City’s area and popuation increases, and the
> City’s transit system
> is exceptionally poor.  Of the MAPS 3 moneys, well
> over half the funds
> are “economic development”.  This comes on
> the heels of our recent $120
> million welfare check to help 3 of the richest families in
> the state
> steal the Sonics from Seattle, and the decision to invest
> all of the
> property taxes for the next 20 years from the new Devon
> Energy tower
> downtown rather than using them to fund the regular budgets
> of our
> schools, libraries, health departments, and general
> government
> operations.
> 
> 
> 
> 6.  Sustainability Issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Advocates of sustainability should be concerned about the
> continued
> mis-allocation of increasingly scarce resources that the
> MAPS 3
> proposal represents.  The convention center and the
> piece-meal approach
> to area transit are major sustainability issues.
> 
> 
> 
> As noted above, the convention center is an investment in
> social
> injustice (using tax money to create low-wage/low-benefit
> jobs for
> companies that typically treat their employees with
> injustrice e.g. not
> paying social security taxes on their payrolls). Social
> injustice is
> never good for sustainability.
> 
> 
> 
> The convention center is an investment in the travel
> industry, and the
> travel promoted by conventions is mostly air travel, the
> most
> unsustainable and polluting of all the methods of travel.
> Moreover,
> given the on-going economic crisis, and the possibility of
> permanently
> changed economic codnitions, the future of the convention
> industry is
> problematic at best.
> 
> 
> 
> The sustainability problem with the transit component is
> that the City
> has adopted a piece-meal approach to regional
> transit.  This is
> inefficient and will greatly increase costs, both fiscal
> capital costs
> and opportunity costs to transit patrons.  For
> example, MAPS 1 built a
> downtown terminal for the City's bus system  
> MAPS 3 now proposes a
> downtown trolley system -- with a terminal not conveniently
> locatedat
> the same place as the bus terminal. This builds major
> inefficiencies
> into the system for patrons.  It decreases the value
> of the downtown
> trolley system by increasing its inconvenience to patrons
> of the bus
> system. City leaders promise eventually to build a regional
> transit
> system, whose terminal may be in a third location! More
> inefficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> The MAPS 3 proposal accepts the destruction of the rail
> center of Union
> Station, and does not conceptualize its replacement with a
> multi-modal
> transportation center. So we reject our heritage
> transportation assets,
> without a clear plan for their replacement. This
> uncoordinated approach
> to transit adopted by the City will make the eventual
> creation of a
> multi-modal, regional transportation center much more
> expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> While there are some good pro-sustainability projects in
> the proposal
> (trails and sidewalks) there is no absolute assurance that
> those
> projects will be built, due to the way the City Council
> chose to
> structure the ballot.  As presently configured, MAPS 3
> is an investment
> in unsustainability.  And going into the 20th century,
> cities that
> consistently invest in unsustainability will find
> themselves left
> behind.
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> If we continue the City Council’s path of taking from
> the general
> public and giving to the politically well-connected,
> Oklahoma City will
> continue to look more and more like a Victor Hugo
> novel.  We need a
> better MAPS 3 proposal that meets essential city needs, not
> another
> give-away subsidy for downtown special interests. I urge
> everyone to
> join with their neighbors to send a message to City Hall
> – “Not This
> MAPS!”.  We can do better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change to digest delivery mode:
> http://www.sustainableokc.org/mailman/listinfo/okc
> Go to the bottom of the website, enter your email address,
> and then edit your options.
> 
> To subscribe:
> http://www.sustainableokc.org/mailman/listinfo/okc