70% of Oklahoma City Voters Reject City Sale Tax Cut (Stillwater: transfer, to buy)

[StillwaterTownie]

Yep, Oklahoma City realizes for the 4th time more than ever that making local government yet bigger works out great for the common good. Nearly a billion dollars will be raised for the next 8 years to spend on civic projects. This time social issues will also be addressed, ranging from domestic abuse, mental health, drug addiction to homelessness and after school programs. Conservatives not for it will have to pout for the next 8 years. But Oklahoma City area is about the only area in the state experiencing significant population growth. 27.2% since 2000.

https://oklahoman.com/article/564955...ndslide-margin

[jamies]

Because the government knows better than you how to spend your money.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by jamies

Because the government knows better than you how to spend your money.

Yeah, nearly a billion at a time.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Yep, Oklahoma City realizes for the 4th time more than ever that making local government yet bigger works out great for the common good. Nearly a billion dollars will be raised for the next 8 years to spend on civic projects. This time social issues will also be addressed, ranging from domestic abuse, mental health, drug addiction to homelessness and after school programs. Conservatives not for it will have to pout for the next 8 years. But Oklahoma City area is about the only area in the state experiencing significant population growth. 27.2% since 2000.

https://oklahoman.com/article/564955...ndslide-margin

People in OKC have been paying the MAPS Tax for what? 17 years now?

Paying an extra penny on the dollar has demonstrated tangible evidence of improvement in the city thus far in a brick and mortar fashion. I worry this time that improvements will be harder to see and detractors will claim that we are "throwing our money away" on social programs.

Before this one we've always had something shiny and new to show the tax payers for MAPS. I hope the planners have some specific outcomes they can demonstrate with these new programs.

[Mugofbeer]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

People in OKC have been paying the MAPS Tax for what? 17 years now?

Paying an extra penny on the dollar has demonstrated tangible evidence of improvement in the city thus far in a brick and mortar fashion. I worry this time that improvements will be harder to see and detractors will claim that we are "throwing our money away" on social programs.

Before this one we've always had something shiny and new to show the tax payers for MAPS. I hope the planners have some specific outcomes they can demonstrate with these new programs.

Not to mention how the city will pay the cost of some of these programs once MAPS runs out.

Overall, as an expat, its amazing to see what MAPS has done, positively, for the city.

[StillwaterTownie]

When Republican candidates say they stand for cutting taxes and making government smaller, they need to say what specifically they mean by that.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Mugofbeer

Not to mention how the city will pay the cost of some of these programs once MAPS runs out.

Overall, as an expat, its amazing to see what MAPS has done, positively, for the city.

I think MAPS will be perpetual if they can continue to show bang for the buck. But when they are spending the money on social program type of things instead of brick and mortar I get a bit nervous that the voters might vote it down.

[Mugofbeer]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

When Republican candidates say they stand for cutting taxes and making government smaller, they need to say what specifically they mean by that.

What does this have to do with MAPS? Every MAPS vote was authorized by voters and has nothing to do with big or little government. It has to do with facilities and services the citizens directly think their city should provide.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by Mugofbeer

What does this have to do with MAPS? Every MAPS vote was authorized by voters and has nothing to do with big or little government. It has to do with facilities and services the citizens directly think their city should provide.

Of course, it has a lot to do with making government bigger. No big new park, no bigger government. But it's what voters wanted. I don't blame them. No private development company was going to buy up a lot of land and remodel it into a park and call it Scissortail. But I wonder how many conservatives voted against it because it meant no tax cut and more city government.

[Mugofbeer]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Of course, it has a lot to do with making government bigger. No big new park, no bigger government. But it's what voters wanted. I don't blame them. No private development company was going to buy up a lot of land and remodel it into a park and call it Scissortail. But I wonder how many conservatives voted against it because it meant no tax cut and more city government.

I guess technically that's right. As for how many voted against it, considering the city's demographic makeup, not many. Especially on this last vote. Older, conservative folks tend to be the ones who religiously get out and vote on everything and MAPS4 won by something close to a 70% level. I don't think many voted against it.

If your point is that conservatives ALWAYS want smaller government, you're wrong (except for the few radicals on the fringe). Conservatives will be fine with reasonable government that is non-intrusive and efficiently runs city services. What conservatives don't want to see are a lot of what are perceived as wasteful, giveaway, wealth transfer programs that won't accomplish a thing.

Building a baseball stadium, damming the river, building what could be an iconic downtown park for the masses have all proven to be wonderful for the city resulting in billions in private investment. Conservatives can see successes and get behind them.