Original Versin of MAPS III - THE PROPOSAL</A> <meta http-equiv="content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <style> p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px } hr { height: 0.0125in; background-color: black } body { font-family: "Verdana", sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal } </style> </head> <body> <a name="top"></a><blockquote><blockquote><b><font color="red" size="3">IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF MY BLOG ARTICLE AND SOME OF THE VIEWS AND CONTENT BELOW HAVE SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY A REPLACEMENT VERSION. THIS ARTICLE EXISTS FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES ONLY. It was originally posted on September 20 and was last modified on 9/24/2009 but has, as just said been replaced by a different article.</b></font> <br><br> <center><b><font size="3">MAPS III -- THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL</B></font></center> <br><br> <center><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/map3logo.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/map3logos.jpg"></a></center> <br> In another <a href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/08/core-to-shore-resources.html" target="_blank">lengthy article</a>, 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, <a href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/09/maps-iii-actual-vote.html" target="_blank">ballot, ordinance, and council resolution issues</a> are addressed. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> <center>To skip my rant and get to more substantive matters, click ... <br><br> <a href="#announcement">Press Conference</a> <a href="#nodetail">The Devil is (details are) Missing</a> <br> <a href="#details">Available Details</a> <a href="#parkpics">Central Park Pics</a> <a href="#otherpics">Other Images</a></center> <br><br> <b><font color="red">THE RANT. </B></font>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. Secondly, now that the September 17 announcement has been made, precious few details, even though they are certainly available to be given, have thus far been presented, as will be shortly discussed at length. <br><br> I do not apologize for being a tempered cynic – as I said, I'm very fond of our mayor and of the city council members that I know – but the inclusion of certain elements in MAPS III most certainly was based upon political considerations and not upon the thoughts of citizens who spent a heck of a lot of time this summer considering the potential Maps 3 proposal. Steve Lackmeyer's list of guest bloggers and those others identified <a href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/08/core-to-shore-resources.html#public" target="_blank">in this area</a> of my own Core To Shore discussion would have been better advised to be doing something else altogether because it just didn't matter. <br><br> In his post in Steve Lackmeyer's OkcCentral column, <a href="http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/09/15/downtown-okc-2020-blair-humphreys/" target="_blank">Blair Humphreys made the case</a> for what he called, "The Power of Engaged Citizenry," when discussing New York City's Robert Moses' vision for a new Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, and how that vision was overcome by the "engaged citizenry" of that time in New York City. The tide turned when those citizens became involved and came to the fore. Blair said, <br><blockquote>That changed however as a group of concerned citizens stepped forward and became involved. Initially, they were not against Moses or against progress in the form of Bridges. They simply questioned why the matter could not be studied further to ensure that the best solution was found and that no irreversible mistakes were made.</blockquote>Food for thought. <i><b><font color="red" size="2">IT IS NOT written in the book </b></i> that when one sales tax ends another should immediately begin to insure the city's movement forward.</font> Now that something along the lines of an actual proposal has been made (so far, it's only kinda-sorta a final proposal given the absence of detail presented so far), might it just be possible that, <br><blockquote><i>This would be a great time for public input so that the city's present proposal could be fine-tuned by an "engaged citizenry?" What have we got to lose? What might we have to gain?</i></blockquote>Seems to me that <i>this time</i> is the <i>best time</i> to think and discuss some more. <br><br> But, that is not "the book" that we are presently given. Everything, all of the sudden, is <i>rush-rush</i>. This article attempts to present the package-deal MAPS III proposal that we'll likely be voting upon on December 8, 2009, about 2 1/2 months from today unless city leaders see any value in taking a deep breath, trusting their citizens' good will, and allowing at least a brief time for additional input and modification of that which we will soon be voting up, or down. <br><br> At the risk of not being considered timely, I've delayed making this post to allow a little, but not much, time to set in to ponder the proposal and to see if greater detail might be forthcoming than was originally put forth on September 17 by Mayor Cornett. All of us, as voters, want to know the detail when making an informed decision as to whether to extend the penny sales tax for about 7 3/4 years. The extra days haven't produced any increased detail that I would have liked, and, to me, that is a weakness of the proposal when we're being asked to invest 3/4 of a billion dollars ($777 million) on a proposal which could easily have given citizens an additional period of input. <br><br> The unwillingness of the mayor and other council members to give citizens the courtesy and the credit to (1) have a proposal put forward, and then (2) allow time for citizens to rationally analyze and make constructive criticism and perhaps even modify the proposal based on that input before (3) putting the matter to a vote does not give Oklahoma City voters the credit which I think they are rightly due. Frankly, to me, the approach represents a degree of arrogance that I do not appreciate. <br><br> End of rant. <br><br> No further detail yet forthcoming, I'll join other earlier bloggers and reporters (see Blair Humphreys' <a href="http://imaginativeamerica.com/2009/09/mayor-and-council-announce-maps-3-proposal/" target="_blank">imagiNATIVE America</a>, Nick Roberts' <a href="http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/09/3-maps-8-projects-7-years-1-city.html" target="_blank">DowntownOnTheRange</a> and others there, Steve Lackmeyer's <a href="http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/09/17/maps-3-the-final-cut/" target="_blank">OkcCentral.com</a>) who have already announced the proposal and try to add some thoughts. <br><br> <a name="announcement"></a><b><font color="red">THE ANNOUNCEMENT. </B></font>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 <a href="http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-maps3-opposition-story,0,776611.story?track=rss" target="_blank">has since announced</a> his opposition. <br><br> The <i>Oklahoman's</i> 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 <i>Oklahoman's</i> 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 <a href="http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=4135980&flvUri=&thirdpartymrssurl=" target="_blank">Channel 9 website</a>, should you want to see the whole thing. <br><br> <center><object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/1681694480?isVid=1&publisherID=713285227" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=40741749001&playerID=1681694480&domain=embed&" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/1681694480?isVid=1&publisherID=713285227" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=40741749001&playerID=1681694480&domain=embed&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object></center> <br>An area of the city's website, <a href="http://www.okc.gov/maps3/" target="_blank">www.okc.gov/maps3</a> popped up the new information on the same day. There, part of the text reads,<blockquote>The initiative proposes a diverse list of eight projects: <br><ol><li>A new, approximately 70-acre central park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River</li><li>A new rail-based streetcar system, plus potential funding for other rail transit initiatives, such as commuter lines and a transit hub</li><li>A new downtown convention center</li><li>Sidewalks to be placed on major streets and near facilities used by the public throughout the City</li><li>57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City</li><li>Improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world</li><li>State-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers throughout the City designed for senior citizens</li><li>Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds</li></ol>"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." <br><br> 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. <br><br> The estimated total cost of the initiative is $777 million. That total cost includes $17 million in contingency funds. <br><br> 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.</blockquote><a name="nodetail"></a><B><FONT COLOR="RED">THE DEVIL IS MISSING. </B></FONT>Neither the press conference, nor the <a href="http://www.okc.gov/maps3/" target="_blank">www.MAPS3.org website</a> (including it subparts) give any real detail. It's like the city is mimicking what cool-guy Jack Nicholson said in the 1992 movie, <i>A Few Good Men</i>, <b>"You can't handle the truth."</b> 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. <br><br> If you're like me, you cling closely to the principle, "The devil is in the detail." As yet, the devil is a missing person in several important respects. <br><br> All we get right now is a "Summary" page, which rather ticks me off since it is plainly obvious that all of the detail is presently available and could have been disseminated on September 17 even though it wasn't. As a matter of fact, the dates on each of the renderings of Central Park, below, are dated August 14, 2009 (when we were still being told that our input mattered). <br><br> Instead, we are given a summary. The "Summary of MAPS 3 Projects" statement is located at <a href="http://www.okc.gov/maps3/summary.html" target="_blank">this Maps 3 address</a>. Frankly, at this point, particularly since we will apparently be called to vote on Maps 3 on December 9, 2009, 11 weeks and 4 days from the date this text is written, I am looking for detail, now, as much detail as the city has to give. I was disappointed to read on that page that, <br><blockquote>Please note that more information on each project will be made available at regular press conferences beginning in October.</blockquote><b>If the city has the detail now, as it presumably does, why wait until press conferences beginning in October when the public, you and I, could start reading, and thinking, on our own right now?</b> <br><br> Can you say, "Open Records Act?" Unless one is inclined to be litigious (and I'm not), for now we have no alternative but to take what the city decides and when it decides to give the detail which most of us, I would suppose, would dearly like to see – <b><i>today</b></i>, not "beginning in" October – which statement itself infers that detailed information will be spread out over some period of time. Sorry, but that spoon-fed type of approach is wholly rude and disrespectful to the citizens of our fine city. <br><br> Read the city's <a href="http://www.okc.gov/maps3/summary.html" target="_blank">summary page</a> for more, but a summary of the summary is this: <br><ol><li><b>The Park. </b>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</li> <br><li><b>Transit. </b>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 or even a preferred route. Estimated cost: $130 million.</li> <br><li><b>Convention Center. </b>Aside from stating a rationale as to why the convention center is included, no details are stated, including location. Estimated cost: $280 million.</li> <br><li><b>Sidewalks. </b>The summary states that, <blockquote>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).</blockquote>The summary does not say where. Estimated cost: $10 million.</li> <br><li><b>Trails. </b>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.</li> <br><li><b>The Oklahoma River. </b>The summary reads,<blockquote>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.</blockquote>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.</li> <br><li><b>Health & Wellness Aquatic Centers for Senior Citizens. </b>Hey, I finally get a pool! "Multiple" (count 'em) centers will be constructed at locations "around the city." Better have one near Mesta Park for this item to carry any weight with me! Estimated cost: $50 million.</li> <br><li><b>State Fairgrounds. </b>The summary reads,<blockquote>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.</blockquote>The summary does not identify any particulars. Estimated cost: $60 million.</li></ol>Pardon me for saying so, but the citizens of Oklahoma City are not morons to be led by the nose and be given bits and pieces of real information which those in power decide to impart when the time seems right. We are wholly capable of cuddling up to that detail on a single night's reading, should we care to do so. <i>We might even have the capacity to understand it</i>. Not only are we capable of reading and understanding the detail, we are entitled to have it and it is our right to have it as soon as it is (has been) available. We, as proud Oklahoma City citizens, deserve better treatment than we have been given. <br><br> Are you picking up on the fact that, in some respects, (a) I am seriously ticked off by the developments of MAPS 3 this past week? (b) Did you get the sense in my <a href="http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/08/core-to-shore-resources.html" target="_blank">Core To Shore article</a> which I painstakingly put together (and transmitted to the mayor and 4 members of City Council) in reliance upon the mayor's statements that public input might actually matter at that point in time, didn't? (c) Do answers to (a) and (b) indicate how I will vote if, as planned, a vote on MAPS 3 is put to the vote of the people on December 8? Your correct answers are (a)Yes, (b)Yes, and (c), No. <br><br> <b>Why is (c), "No?"</b> It is because I, probably like most of us, am seriously interested and hopeful that our city's remarkable progress since MAPS 1 will continue <i>even if, <b>even if</b>, </i> we are forced to make a premature decision as to the present proposal on December 8. If the environment doesn't change, even if ticked, I'll likely vote "Yes," even if I am angry when doing so. <br><br> But, what if a December 8 MAPS 3 vote fails? A rejection of MAPS 3 on December 8 doesn't necessarily mean that <i>a different MAPS 3 proposal</i>, following a constructive critique and re-evaluation of the September 17 proposal (however it ultimately flushes out to be) would receive a far more favorable treatment when presented to the population for a vote. <br><br> Better it would be, I'm thinking, if the council in its wisdom decides to defer the vote for, say, three or so months, to allow additional public input to what has been announced to us as a Maps 3 done deal during this past week. <br><br> Whether they do (unlikely) or don't (likely), here's a snapshot of the items (and adding my personal priority opinions) of the total $777 million dollar proposal: <br><br> <table cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0"><tr bgcolor="Moccasin"><td width="2%"></td><td valign="top" width="30%"><b>MAPS 3 ITEMS</B></td><td valign="top" align="center"><b>Millions</b></td><td valign="top" align="center"><b>High <br>Priority</b></td><td valign="top" align"center"><b>Medium <br>Priority</b></td><td valign="top" align="center"><b>Low <br>Priority</b></td></tr><tr bgcolor="LemonChiffon"><td align="center">1</td><td>Central Park</td><td align="right">$130</td><td align="right">$130</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="Moccasin"><td align="center">2</td><td>Modern Streetcars</td><td align="right">130</td><td align="right">130</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="LemonChiffon"><td align="center">3</td><td>Convention Center</td><td align="right">280</td><td align="right">280</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="Moccasin"><td align="center">4</td><td>Sidewalks</td><td align="right">10</td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">$10</td></tr><tr bgcolor="LemonChiffon"><td align="center">5</td><td>Trails</td><td align="right">40</td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">40</td></tr><tr bgcolor="Moccasin"><td align="center">6</td><td>Oklahoma River</td><td align="right">60</td><td align="right">60</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="LemonChiffon"><td align="center">7</td><td>Senior Health Centers</td><td align="right">50</td><td></td><td align="right">$50</td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="Moccasin"><td align="center">8</td><td>Fairgrounds</td><td align="right">60</td><td></td><td align="right">50</td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="LemonChiffon"><td align="center">9</td><td>Contingency Fund</td><td align="right">17</td><td align="right">17</td><td align="right"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr bgcolor="Moccasin"><td align="center"></td><td>Totals</td><td align="right">$777</td><td align="right">$617</td><td align="right">$100</td><td align="right">$50</td></tr></table> <br><a name="details"></a><b><font color="red">THE PROPOSAL'S DETAILS. </b></font>On and after the mayor's September 17 announcement, I figured that, if I looked closely enough, I'd find renderings at the city's <a href="http://www.okc.gov/maps3/" target="_blank">Maps 3 website</a> of something that might hint, even better, state, at least some particulars. With the exception of the Central Park renderings below, I was wrong. Nothing else was there to see or evaluate on September 17, and nothing else is there as of this edited report, September 24. Since writing the original article, a few additional images (but no new information) have/has been supplied at the website established by the official MAPS 3 proponents' organization, led by the Greater OKC Chamber, at <a href="http://www.yesformaps.com/" target="_blank">this location</a>. <br><br> It appears that I'm not alone in the need to have MAPS 3 detail and that the absence of such detail is cause for pause by a significant number of voters. The <i>Oklahoma Gazette</i> and News9 engaged a professional poller, Shapard Research, who conducted an extensive poll immediately prior to Mayor Cornett's September 17 announcement of the MAPS 3 initiative which would be presented to the city council and to Oklahoma City voters on December 9. Click on the image below or <a href="http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity/gazettepoll.htm" target="_blank">this link</a> to read the full September 22, 2009, <i>Gazette</i> article which I've OCR-ed and converted to html for ease of reading and printing – but if you prefer to see the original <i>Gazette</i> source, <a href="http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4716/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA" target="_blank">click here</a>. <br><br> <center><a href="http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity/gazettepoll.htm" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/GazetteNews9polls.jpg"></a></center> <br>Some snippets from the article read as follows: <br><blockquote>The public opinion poll, conducted by Shapard Research just prior to Cornett's announcement, found a slight majority favors extending the 1-cent sales tax which has been used to fund several city projects; almost everyone surveyed knew little to nothing about the proposal; three of the proposed projects have marginal support; and support is waning with each successive extension. <br>* * * <br>It will require a heavy education campaign. More than 80 percent polled said they do not have sufficient project information to make a final decision of support or opposition for MAPS 3. The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce has conducted two polls, but refuses to release the findings.</blockquote>At the time of the poll, the marquee MAPS 3 items, Convention Center and Central Park, were two of the eight MAPS 3 items which were least favored (even though they are two of the most important items for me). Downtown rail favored much better, as did the senior citizens aquatic and wellness centers. Overall, 52% agreed that extending the tax is a good idea, 37% wanted to let the tax expire, and 11% were undecided. <br><br> As of this September 24 edition of this article, as to detail, all I can do is to make placeholders which will hopefully be able to filled in in the near future: <br><ol><li><b>The Park: $130M. </b>See the images below. Assuming that those images are actually representative of what we should expect the park to look like (and it would be good to see that in writing or at least orally stated), detail about Central Park is sufficient to make a decision. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the value of the item and its quality: High</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>Transit: $130M. </b>Other than as contained in the above summary, no details have yet been provided. Presumably, the route and equipment to be utilized will be identified, however a small rendering showing a streetcar passing by Spaghetti Warehouse is in <a href="#otherpics">Other Pics</a>, below. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the value of the item and its quality: High, but subject to route and equipment information being supplied.</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>Convention Center: $280M. </b>Other than as contained in the above summary, no details have yet been provided. We don't even know where the city's proposal will stick it. A small rendering is in <a href="#otherpics">Other Pics</a>, below. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the value, location, and quality of this item: Value: High; Location: Unknown (and this is important to me); Quality: Unknown</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>Sidewalks: $10M. </b>Other than as contained in the above summary, no details have yet been provided. This one's not particularly important to me but it was probably included to be sure there was something for everyone, a political decision. A small rendering is in <a href="#otherpics">Other Pics</a>, below. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the value of this item: Value: Low</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>Trails: $40M. </b>By looking up (which I've not done) the city's trails master plan, the detail is probably sufficient. This one's not particularly important to me but it was probably included to be sure there was something for everyone, a political decision. A small rendering is in <a href="#otherpics">Other Pics</a>, below. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the value of this item: Value: Low</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>The Oklahoma River: $60M. </b>Other than as contained in the above summary, no details have yet been provided. Two small renderings are in <a href="#otherpics">Other Pics</a>, below. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the value of this item: Value: High –</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>Health & Wellness Aquatic Centers for Senior Citizens: $50M. </b>Other than as contained in the above summary, no details have yet been provided. This is another item probably included to be sure there was something for everyone, a political decision. But, of those in that category, this may be the best of the lot – certainly better than sidewalks and trails for which, in importance, cannot begin to match the park, convention center, and transit elements of the proposal. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the potential value of this item: Value: Medium</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>State Fairgrounds: $60M. </b>Other than as contained in the above summary, no details have yet been provided. This one was also probably included for political reasons. A small and very general rendering is in <a href="#otherpics">Other Pics</a>, below. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the potential value of this item: Value: Medium –</b></font></i></li> <br><li><b>Things Not Addressed So Far. </b>We do not yet know whether or how a few neat historical structures east of Central Park will be affected, most notably the International Harvester Building on Broadway and the Film Exchange Building on Robinson. We do not know whether the Convention Center will be located south of Lower Bricktown instead of south of the Ford Center. <br><br> <i><font color="darkred"><b>My opinion about the potential value of such items: Value: High</b></font></i></li></ol><a name="parkpics"></a><b><font color="red">PARK PICS. </B></FONT>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. <br><br> <center><b>All Images Contained in OKCCentralPark.pdf <br>at <a href="http://www.okc.gov/maps3/" target="_blank">the Maps 3 Website</a></b> <br><table><tr><td valign="top" align="center">(1) Aerial Looking North <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page1_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page1_250.jpg"></a></td><td valign="top" align="center">(2) Recreation Fields Looking North <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page2_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page2_250.jpg"></a></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center">(3) Aerial Night Performance <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page3_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page3_250.jpg"></a></td><td valign="top" align="center">(4) View of Lake and Cuestas <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page4_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page4_250.jpg"></a></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center">(5) Garden Cafe and Playground <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page5_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page5_250.jpg"></a></td><td valign="top" align="center">(6) Harvey Spine Looking South <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page6_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page6_250.jpg"></a></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center">(7) Harvey Spine Looking North <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page7_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page7_250.jpg"></a></td><td valign="top" align="center">(8) Aerial View Looking North <br><a href="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page8_1024.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/centralpark_page8_250.jpg"></a></td></tr></table></center> <br><a name="otherpics"></a><b><font color="red">OTHER IMAGES. </font></b>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 <a href="http://www.yesformaps.com/" target="_blank">http://www.yesformaps.com</a> <br><br> 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: <br><br> <center><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_01.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_02.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_02a.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_03.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_04.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_05.jpg"> <br><br> <img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/yesformaps_06.jpg"></center> <br><br> When additional renderings of elements of Maps 3's proposal, I'll add them here. <br><br> <center><a href="#top">Go To Top</a> </center> </blockquote></blockquote> </body> </html>