<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16939" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=703142221-23112009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I am extremely disappointed in your position. Yes, it is a
"leap of faith", but our track record is superb. Gentrification is not what this
is about. It is about creating a livable city for all people of all
socio-economic situations. It is the exact opposite of the "white flight" to the
suburbs. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=703142221-23112009></SPAN><SPAN
class=703142221-23112009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=703142221-23112009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Sustainability is and always has been a concern of mine. I
really believed our OKC sustainability movement was business friendly, but I
fear it is not. Your blog does not influence my decision to vote for MAPS
but it does influence my interest in supporting
sustainableokc.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=703142221-23112009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=703142221-23112009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Ron
Page</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><BR></DIV></FONT></SPAN>
<DIV> </DIV><IMG height=97 src="cid:703142221@23112009-1EC3" width=199
v:shapes="_x0000_i1032"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=1> Local
(405) 810-8585 Fax (405) 810-9103 <BR></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=1> 3501 NW 63rd
Street, Suite 602<BR></FONT></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=1> Oklahoma City, OK
73116<BR></FONT></SPAN> <A href="http://www.pagec.com/"><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">www.pagec.com</SPAN></STRONG></A> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> okc-bounces@sustainableokc.org
[mailto:okc-bounces@sustainableokc.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Robert
Waldrop<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, November 23, 2009 2:57 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
Sustainable Oklahoma City<BR><B>Subject:</B> [OKC] Not this MAPS! Social justice
and sustainability issues with an OKC ballot proposal<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT face=Arial>Below are my thoughts on the upcoming MAPS 3 vote in
Oklahoma City, as published today in my blog at <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=211"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=211</A> .<BR><BR>Bob
Waldrop, Oklahoma City<BR><BR>NOT THIS MAPS! We can do better!<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>1. No
Assurance of Project Completion.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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”.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>2. The City is being
stingy with info.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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 <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html</A>
.<BR><BR>Among the most important unanswered questions are –<BR>+ How will
the projects be staged? Which will be first? Last?<BR><BR>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”. <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html</A>
(Scroll down to the Nov 16th report.)<BR><BR>+ 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.<BR><BR>+ 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.<BR><BR>+ 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?<BR><BR>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. <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html</A>
.Scroll down to the report of the Oct 29 Chamber of Commerce luncheon and the
remarks of Mary Margaret Jones of Hargreaves Associates.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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. <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://tinyurl.com/yhkr937"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://tinyurl.com/yhkr937</A><BR><BR>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”.<BR><BR>+ 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?<BR><BR>3.
Equity Issues.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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,.<BR><BR>4. Convention Center.<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>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.)<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>5. Police and Fire-fighter concerns. <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>6. Sustainability
Issues.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Conclusion<BR><BR>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!<BR><BR><BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>