Talk:MAPS

Adding to the story

There was a lot missing from the initial article. The omission of the "domed stadium" controversy was serious. I hope my contribution preserves the neutral point of view while adding important details. I am still unhappy with the list of projects that is ranked by "popularity." The list of projects authorized in the enabling legislation was rather different. No "light rail," for instance. The Oklahoma City model also deserved a mention. -- Rob 18:20, 2 October 2006 (PDT)

• Thanks for your help. It would be good to have the list as it was authorized (and to de-emphasize the unofficial poll). I didn't have much in the way of tertiary sources to reference regarding the controversies. I agree with referencing the OKC precedent and with the general need to continue expanding and improving this article. --Dystopos 19:00, 2 October 2006 (PDT)
  • Very good changes; thanks. I resisted mentioning regressive taxation because it's a cause of mine, and I want to keep my voice firmly out of this. (NPOV.) But it does belong in the article.
  • I vividly recall the poll published in the Birmingham News that noted majority opposition to the domed stadium, and I believe it is the same one already quoted. But you're right, I need a specific cite.
  • On the project funding, it is not correct to say that other funding was pursued after MAPS. In the case of the McWane Center, the "high-tech" library, and the aquatics center (at Lakeshore Hospital), funding was already assured when MAPS was proposed. (E.g., the library had already received a Gates Foundation grant.) I don't have documentary proof, but it might do to point to that science playpen on 2nd Ave. N., which went ahead in spite of the defeat of MAPS. Also the computers at the Birmingham library branches (even if they're a bit long in the tooth now), the catalog server that handles patron searches online, etc. (see below)
  • I changed the part about Jimmy Blake "leading" RAPS, as I recall that they were at some pains to identify two other people as the leaders. Blake was clearly associated with it, and often spoke on its behalf. But given his rep at the time, well.... I think it would be more accurate not to say he led the group (which vanished with the defeat of MAPS anyway).
  • I will see if I can get at the actual language of the legislation. -- Rob 19:20, 2 October 2006 (PDT)

pursued independently

With regard to the realization of many of the MAPS projects, I prefer my wording "were pursued independently", rather than "did not depend on". The claim that these projects would not happen without MAPS was merely a rhetorical ploy used by supporters to imply a threat. Most of them long-predated MAPS, even if just as ideas. And it is beyond our means to predict the effect that MAPS passage would have had, either on these specific projects or on other developments or priorities made more attainable if MAPS had been funded. John Mackay, then CEO of the McWane Center, stated that they would proceed with all of their planned future exhibits within 5 years of MAPS passage. Those plans remain largely unrealized now, even as the center's leadership and priorities have changed. --Dystopos 19:54, 2 October 2006 (PDT)