<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Engravers MT";
panose-1:2 9 7 7 8 5 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>Ok this is serious:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From a practical point of view, I really like the “we
can do better” approach. Certainly, it is true. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>Ok this is not so serious:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>I’d say it is not “business friendly” to raise
taxes in order to subsidize certain private businesses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>Ok this is only a little serious:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>When you look at MAPS, it hard to believe this is the capital
city of a “red state” unless the red is background to a hammer and sickle.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Engravers MT","serif";
font-variant:small-caps;color:#1F497D;letter-spacing:.1pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"Engravers MT","serif";
color:#1F497D;letter-spacing:.9pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"Engravers MT","serif";
color:#1F497D;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.9pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> okc-bounces@sustainableokc.org
[mailto:okc-bounces@sustainableokc.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ron Page<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 23, 2009 3:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Robert Waldrop'; 'Sustainable Oklahoma City'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [OKC] Not this MAPS! Social justice and sustainability
issues with an OKC ballot proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Ron Page<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><img width=199 height=97 id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C59.6C51A6A0"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> Local
(405) 810-8585 Fax (405) 810-9103 <br>
3501 NW 63rd Street, Suite 602<br>
Oklahoma City, OK 73116<br>
</span> <a href="http://www.pagec.com/"><strong><span style='font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"'>www.pagec.com</span></strong></a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> 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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Below
are my thoughts on the upcoming MAPS 3 vote in Oklahoma City, as published
today in my blog at <a href="http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=211">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
href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html">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
href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html">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
href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-news-about-maps-3.html">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 href="http://tinyurl.com/yhkr937">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>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>