Back Under Center
March 16th, 2009The Oklahoman’s Monday Morning Quarterbacks section has once again written a blurb about imagiNATIVEamerica. This time referencing the “A Convention Center IS NOT About Quality of Life” post. Here is what they had to say:
MAPS for who?
Who will MAPS 3 be for? That’s one question on the mind of Oklahoma City native Blair Humphreys. “My impression has always been that MAPS was about focusing less on what outsiders want and more on what the people of Oklahoma City want,” Humphreys writes on his blog at imaginativeamerica.com. Humphreys said he has asked for and wants more information about the report recommending the city build a bigger, better convention center and doesn’t know if such a move would take too much focus and money away from quality-of-life type improvements that were the hallmark of the original MAPS.
Is this the start of an transparent public discussion? I’ll cross my fingers.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Blair, I really wish you and/or Steve would do something on whether the National Convention Business is even a business OKC wants to be in. This question is so basic and fundamental that we run the risk of ignoring it in our haste to focus on future MAPS spending. The Brookings report you highlighted is incredibly insightful and, from a business perspective, outlines the National Convention Business as:
- Having significant overcapacity of supply
- Having significantly decreasing demand
- Requiring huge fixed costs to enter
- Generating ongoing operating losses for almost all participants
Question: What business person would want to enter a market with these characteristics?
I’m concerned that people are starting to equate being a Big League City with making the traditional Big League Mistakes. As the Brookings Reports points out, these mistakes have been made consistently by our counterpart cities. Rather than imitating these actions, let’s try to learn from them.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
George-
I will do what I can to point people to information and certainly continue pushing to make the OKC CSL convention center report made available to the public. I am encouraged that the Oklahoman has shown signs that they are willing to look at this issue from all angles. With David Thompson being both the Publisher of the Oklahoman and the current Chairman of the Chamber, it makes you question whether this can happen, but if the paper does cover the full-story then I think he deserves credit for keeping the two interests separated. I can’t speak for Steve obviously, but I too am hoping he will explore it further.
What is your sense of public opinion on the ground? Are there many people in OKC questioning whether the convention center is the best thing to do with the MAPS 3 money?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Looking at the history of OKC, wouldn’t these four points describe mass transit as well?
- Having significant overcapacity of supply
- Having significantly decreasing demand
- Requiring huge fixed costs to enter
- Generating ongoing operating losses for almost all participants
I can’t count the number of times that I’ve watched city buses pass with only one or two riders aboard and I don’t remember ever seeing a crowded bus. I know that the common excuse for this is that our current metro transit system is bad but the truth is that this is the level it has sunk to over the past decades because of shrinking demand.
There is a reason that we know longer have streetcars in the downtown OKC area and that Union Station sits empty. Pundits of mass transit talk like it is a new idea while history proves that mass transit in OKC was made obsolete by the automobile. We have spent over half a century developing one of the most derivable cities in the U.S. We have very few problems with traffic congestion or parking and automobile ownership is quite affordable here as evidenced by the fact that even the lowest income citizens among us own them.
Mass transit works best where personal automobile ownership is more trouble or more expensive than it’s worth. Mass transit in OKC was made obsolete by the convenience of the personal automobile and there is no reason to believe that that is going to change in the foreseeable future.
So along with your question about the convention center, my question would be….are there many people in OKC questioning whether mass transit is the best thing to do with the MAPS 3 money?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Philip,
I think you make a solid case. We could probably argue back and forth about how public transit met its demise in OKC, but you are right, today Oklahoma City is an affordable and incredibly congestion free place to drive a car. Of course, things will not always remain this way. What is true of Oklahoma City today was true of Dallas 30 years ago, but they now have a viable light-rail system because the expansion led to congestion that adding an extra lane could no longer fix. It is cheaper to plan ahead then let our city reach a crisis before re-acting.
Still, I am willing to agree with you that OKC is not ready for light-rail connecting Edmond-OKC-Norman, but I do think we need to improve public transit within the city. Though car ownership is affordable, it is unjust for us to invest heavily in road infrastructure for car owners without providing effective service for people that can’t drive a car, don’t own a car or simply choose not to drive a car. This of course includes many elderly people and some handicapped, but also includes everyone under the age of 16 – a demographic often overlooked. That is a lot of people we are not providing transportation for. Plus, all of this convenient driving has not improved the quality of life in the city, which remains comparatively poor.
I think streetcars making a car-free lifestyle possible close to downtown and a competent bus system serving the broader metro are absolutely necessary. As for light-rail, I am not so sure at this point whether it is necessary. I personally think it would be great, but I understand if you disagree.