NewsOK: Conspiracy theories and downtown development (http://newsok.com/article/3181982/1197983250)

Good ole boy network or not, the main problem with OCURA is that it is incompetent. My disagreements with their decisions aside, it's lack of effort to even enforce the proposals it does approve is where it does the most damage. Furthermore, it seems to have an incredible knack for selecting projects that end up being proclaimed infeasible as proposed, resulting in significant downgrades and delays.

No one would care about the possible existence of good ole boy networks if OCURA could just select a development that gets built as proposed and on time, or even within a reasonable amount of time. Claims of conspiracies here or elsewhere may be unfounded, but such claims wouldn't even be made if OCURA could simply conduct its business in a competence and prudent manner in the interest of Oklahoma City and its citizens. As long as it continues to rubber stamp downgrades and delays of the projects over which it has jurisdiction, it will justifiably be criticized for its incompetence.

Daily Oklahoman
Tue December 18, 2007

Conspiracy theories and downtown development

By Steve Lackmeyer
Main Street

Reading discussions of a "Good Old Boys Club” in regard to downtown development on various web sites is a bit confusing. After all, where is this club located? Is there a secret handshake and a monthly luncheon with a featured speaker? Maybe a weekly newsletter on who should be crushed out of existence?



It could be argued that 30 years ago such a club existed. A handful of the city's most powerful met weekly in a corner of the Beacon Club. Whether they were really plotting a world takeover remains to be seen. But as evidenced by the outcome of downtown redevelopment in the early 1980s, they certainly didn't or couldn't control the city's ultimate direction. And these men are all now deceased.

While discussing the pros and cons of development led by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, it's important to note that those who were accused of being part of the Good Old Boys Club during one developer selection are now cast as the victims of a "grand conspiracy” a second go-around.

Yes, some of the city's most powerful sit on Urban Renewal's board. But they each have their own interests and their own ideas about how to keep downtown's momentum from fading.

The online community enjoys its anonymity. Sometimes, that results in an enlightened discussion and new ideas. But it also allows conspiracy theorists – the ones who never leave their homes, folks with no experience or involvement downtown – to launch attacks without any worry about being held accountable. And it's amusing to see how they latched onto last week's column about the fuzziness of Urban Renewal's selection process as being some sort of proof of a grand conspiracy.

Several developers responded as well to last week's column. They pointed out that one cannot expect a proposal to proceed unchanged unless one is to also require a developer to spend more than $100,000 preparing a pitch that has a high chance of never becoming a reality.

The developers I spoke to all requested anonymity — they're not wanting their comments to influence their chances at future Urban Renewal projects. I would describe one developer, however, as being fairly popular with both the downtown and online community. And here's what he had to say:

"The due diligence period or time within the request for proposals submittal period offers a brief snapshot of the market. It is impossible to determine with absolute certainty what the market will bear or how it might respond to a given development concept ...

"I'd much rather err too low and increase the project's scope than come back to the Urban Renewal well with hat in hand and seek a smaller concept than previously pitched.

"In response to your second question, ‘as some developers in this community privately protest, is Urban Renewal too subjective in which projects get tough love while others get a pass?' I would answer ‘NO.' You cannot expect a group of decision-makers to standardize the selection process to the point that it removes its inherent nature of subjectivity. Without a situation of gross abuse of power or unquestionable unethical activity, the process will be and should be subjective because of the nature of the decision. You're dealing with aesthetic issues of design and architecture. You're also dealing with the developer's personalities and relationships ...

I think the process is as objective as it can honestly be at this time. Each person receives the same request for proposals which outlines the format in which they are to present their proposal. The process is conducted under the open meetings rules. Any attempt to appear more objective would be disingenuous.”

Well said. And hopefully I won't appear in the "to be crushed” notices in next week's newsletter.

Well...He's certainly right about one thing.

They'll let any yahoo on the internet these days. And those yahoos sure like to carry out their delusions...Be they paranoid or grandeur related. Or both.

:noldus:

Wow, not glad to see this article, especially a week after Lackmeyer's best ever article IMO really giving OCURA the spotlight. I wonder if he got the spotlight put on him by the Daily O or OCURA. I do not agree they are fair. They may act accordingly to the Open Meeting Rules, but they sure don't make themselves very publically known, give very good announcements on when/where there meetings are to take place (which sometimes change suddenly), don't post or make known how to obtain minutes from the meetings, etc. They don't state how they make a decision on a project and how it really is in the public's best interest. As BDP said, they don't enforce proposals or timeliness of projects approved and often select the projects that take the longest and often get downgraded or don't have financing in place.

They'll let any yahoo on the internet these days. And those yahoos sure like to carry out their delusions...Be they paranoid or grandeur related. Or both.

True.

But the flip side to that is that no one has to protect their image, so people are less likely to BS. They don't have to worry about what their boss, editor, mayor, political adversary, mother, daughter, etc. think about what they have to say. Yes, it invites the paranoid and delusional as the protection offered by the medium may make it the only medium in which they can communicate these ideas, but at least it is sincere and genuine. You can't say the same thing about what you read in the papers, hear on the stump, or see on TV. All of those people must answer to someone.

On the internet people don't even have to answer to themselves. :)

Not that this thing is nearly as anonymous as most people think anyway. ;)

I think they're MORE likely to BS. More likely to claim all manner of things simply because they feel like there's no recourse. Nobody that can look them in the eye and say "You sir, are full of sh*t" when they make outlandish claims or uneducated guesses about what big money is doing.

It gives the poor man, the weakling, and the generally underprivileged a soap box to stand on, and they'll over-represent themselves like madmen in order to gain some semblance of credibility to those they think actually have a voice and/or power in the real world.

I really hate to admit it, but if I were a mover or a shaker, the last place I'd look for ideas is an internet forum. There are too many people acting like retards on them.

I'm living proof.

However, at least I'm transparent about being a nobody with a big mouth. Others...Not so much.

Nobody that can look them in the eye and say "You sir, are full of sh*t" when they make outlandish claims or uneducated guesses about what big money is doing.

Really? I find that this happens A LOT less in traditional media than on the internet. Here you have a forum within a medium that is connected to the biggest information resource in existence. If I try and BS you or make crazy factual claims, all anyone has to do is look it up and they can even source their retorts. Happens here all the time.

The fact of the matter is that politicians on the stump, op-ed writers, news anchors, or movers and shakers at photo ops face a much lesser potential for scrutiny and debate than anyone does in open discussion formats like this one. They say what they say and then it's "screw you, see you later".

Now, imo, the real problem is people who digest information on the internet without verifying it, but this is a problem that applies to all media and not just the internet. The biggest mistake anyone can make it to discredit information based on the medium from which it comes, and not on the actual content. I'd say that anyone who ignores suggestions or input on this or any other internet forum simply because it's on the internet is foolish.

That being said, it's nice that Steve Lackmeyer actually addressed comments about Oklahoma City made in the world of "new media". However, it's equally unfortunate that he focused on the more unfounded and presumptive criticisms, as if that's all that were present.

Really? I find that this happens A LOT less in traditional media than on the internet. Here you have a forum within a medium that is connected to the biggest information resource in existence. If I try and BS you or make crazy factual claims, all anyone has to do is look it up and they can even source their retorts. Happens here all the time.

The fact of the matter is that politicians on the stump, op-ed writers, news anchors, or movers and shakers at photo ops face a much lesser potential for scrutiny and debate than anyone does in open discussion formats like this one. They say what they say and then it's "screw you, see you later".


Sure, some facts can be checked. But not claims of insider information from people trying so hard to be important that I get embarrassed for them.

And I'd say that the majority of "facts" can be interpreted and twisted to work for almost any bias. Just look at "facts" and "stats" on gun control, the drug war, abortion, heh...Even the President and his track record. Both sides of any of those arguments can quote facts or stats all day and nobody is right.

Maybe I'm just hanging out in the shadier corners of the internet :) Usually, those that claim to know the most, be in on the most, talk the loudest, have more advice, etc....Are usually those people that are standing in the back of the room picking their nose when the important person said "blablabla, screw you, see you later". From what I can tell, a person that shows up HERE, really knows what's going on, or is actually the person making it happen...They'll use their own name or identify themselves very quickly as that person.

But I'm relatively new to this site, and I'm used to not really paying attention to who people are in real life when dealing with online personas...So I'm probably biased towards not trusting people at their word when it's written under a pseudonym. It's hard to turn that off for this site alone.

So I'll STFU now.

or...FOR now :)


:tiphat:

The developers I spoke to all requested anonymity — they're not wanting their comments to influence their chances at future Urban Renewal projects.

I find this statement to be incredulous. Developers make their living from the acceptance and completion of projects. Why wouldn’t the “anonymous developer” do everything legally possible to influence future OCURA selections? If the selection “process is as objective as it can honestly be at this time” fear should not be a factor. Who or what is this developer afraid of? Is the statement itself proof of an uneven playing field?

Mr. Lackmeyer....

The fact they aren't meeting at the Beacon Club anymore is meaningless. A lot of things are different than they were thirty years ago. But it was this attack on anonymity that really disgusted me: "...never leave their homes, folks with no experience or involvement downtown..." Steve, Steve, STEVE! You would be surprised at who is behind some of these anonymous names. Some of us know all too well about OCURA, their history and their present incarnation - which is just as bad. Money still talks downtown, Mr. Lackmeyer - and it doesn't all pass through pockets honestly. If you don't believe there is a good old boy's network in Oklahoma City - you've been snowed, and that's a disappointment. But I wonder if you really don't believe that - or some were insulted enough to express their displeasure with some of their crony friends in the upstairs suites at Britton and Broadway Extension.

Or, maybe, as you've made the book signing tour, you've met "the good old boys" and decided they can do you more good when you stand with them and not against them.

Steve, your comments, published in the state's largest newspaper, attacking those of us who have chosen anonymity - for good reason - and portraying us as being housebound nuts is contemptible.

Very disappointed in that column which appears to be the official sell-out of Mr. Lackmeyer, IMO. The spotlight has been effectively shut down and the cockroaches can again come out to play in the dark.

You would be surprised at who is behind some of these anonymous names.

Yes, but behind some of those anonymous names are people who pretend to be "in the know" and post a lot of false information and speculation. I've seen people on this site post information, claiming it came from some city leader or business owner, that was absolutely false.

I wonder if Lackmeyer got the smack down after his critical column. That would certainly validate the power of the Ol' Boy network, wouldn't it?

The pinnacle of the Ol' Boy network is the Oklahoman. Steve is not in on it, but he gets his paychecks from them.

The more I read his column, the more disappointed I get. He knows better. I think someone "got to him," if you know what I mean (how's that for conspiracy?).

I wonder if Lackmeyer got the smack down after his critical column. That would certainly validate the power of the Ol' Boy network, wouldn't it?

Well, and as PapaJack pointed out above, why did the developers quoted in the column want to remain anonymous if they have nothing to fear? If it's all above board and ethical, what difference would their identities being known make?

Misty, You are right about false information. I've seen it and read it as well. Fortunately, much of it is called out and corrected. But, some of it isn't. But a free-flow of information regarding many of the things we talk about requires anonymity. Some things it doesn't - some things it does. That doesn't mean it's all bad. I don't particularly like it either to be honest. But, here, I know no other way and still be frank and honest without possible retributions.

I detect a little condescension from Steve toward this "new media." As a defender of the "old media," I can relate, but the arrogance mainstream journalists display against blogs and advocacy sites is misplaced and unwarranted.

Factually, the Washington press corp is dismal and has become unreliable in defending our democracy. The blogs often have much better and more pertinent information, and they don't have to dole it out in small bites between car commercials.

Old media resents the fact that new media is at heart more like what traditional journalism once was: a little rough around the edges and more revolutionary.

"Serious" journalists rarely risk their careers by taking on the comfortable. Who was it that once said the role of a journalist is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"? By his comments today, Steve shows he's moving in a different direction from that axiom. His column today was all about protecting the comfortable.

Well, and as PapaJack pointed out above, why did the developers quoted in the column want to remain anonymous if they have nothing to fear? If it's all above board and ethical, what difference would their identities being known make?Exactly. Lackmeyer had some good columns over the last few years, and he increasingly got better over the last few months. His last one must have hit too close to home for the Good Ole Boy Network. I am sure they let him know to stop it.

It is so painfully obvious. He has all these good columns, and his best one to date last week, and then all of a sudden, he disavows all of that. There is only one explanation to that, it is has nothing to do with "openness and honesty."

Perhaps since Steve made it so obvious, he is trying to let us know that is the case. :)

I didn't interpret this as any sort of a withdrawal from the fray. And whether we like it or not, the decision-making process at OCURA is going to be subjective, simply because their crystal balls, like everyone else's, tend to fuzz up when you stare at them for long periods of time. If these guys were consistent at picking winners, they'd get out of the urban-renewal business altogether and go play the stock market.

That said, OCURA is way too secretive, its agendas inscrutable, its minutes apparently hidden away in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."*

As for us anonymous snipers, well, I'm in the book, and lots of other places besides.

* Thank you, Douglas Adams.

"I'd much rather err too low and increase the project's scope than come back to the Urban Renewal well with hat in hand and seek a smaller concept than previously pitched."

When was the last time a developer increased the scale and/or quality of their project after it was approved by OCURA?

When was the last time a developer increased the scale and/or quality of their project after it was approved by OCURA?

I'm guessing that came from Humphreys or Banta, considering how he described the person.

But it also allows conspiracy theorists – the ones who never leave their homes, folks with no experience or involvement downtown – to launch attacks without any worry about being held accountable. And it's amusing to see how they latched onto last week's column about the fuzziness of Urban Renewal's selection process as being some sort of proof of a grand conspiracy.

What a condescending, insulting and sweeping generalization.

Steve is obviously speaking directly to this forum and the thread around his last OCURA article. Since he claims people are hiding behind anonymity, perhaps he'd like to point out the specific posters he puts in this category.

Certainly, you get people that shoot from the hip on message boards. But I find it very strange Steve would take such an unprofessional pot-shot – something must have hit close to home.



The developers I spoke to all requested anonymity — they're not wanting their comments to influence their chances at future Urban Renewal projects.

As pointed out, this statement says it all and is completely contrary to the other points put forth in the article.


This is all beside the main point anyway. Most people that follow OCURA and that posted on that thread are not conspiracy theorists even in the loosest definition. They are people that want to hold a public agency accountable and seem to be the only ones questioning decisions and how they operate. If things were so great at OCURA, why would Lackmeyer even write his first article?

There are more than a few people on this site that follow these dealings very closely; as closely as OCURA’s shadowy movements allow. Many of us have invested a lot of time and effort in collecting minutes and staying on top of these developments. We’ve also archived various articles and renderings that track the course of these developments and how they often deviate significantly from the original proposals and with many missed “final” deadlines without reopening the process.

The bottom line is that the posters on this forum are the only ones asking the tough questions, and it’s all done only out of concern and affection for Oklahoma City. None of us have a financial stake or take orders from people that do.


And as far as I know, we all leave our homes. :)

And I'd say that the majority of "facts" can be interpreted and twisted to work for almost any bias. Just look at "facts" and "stats" on gun control, the drug war, abortion, heh...Even the President and his track record. Both sides of any of those arguments can quote facts or stats all day and nobody is right.

OK, exactly. But that has nothing to do with the medium in which those debates take place. The internet has no exclusive hold on biased discussion, but it offers a much more inclusive environment for such discussion which mitigates the bias more than any other medium we know today.

For example, you can listen to such discussions on a cable news show or talk radio program or read them in op-eds and subsequent letters to the editor. In those forums the hosts, editors, and producers pick the guests, choose the "experts", screen the responses, and edit the letters. Contributors to the discussion claiming to be "experts" are in no way qualified by the medium or by name alone. Their credibility is entirely built upon experience in the field of discussion and supporting evidence they provide for their perspective. Even in anonymity, an internet poster can create such credibility with the same. Of course, no one should be accepted as an expert simply by proclamation, but that is no different in traditional media, or, at least, it shouldn't be.

Take Steve Lackmeyer for example. I don't know him any more than anyone on this forum. The fact that he puts his name and picture next to his columns in no way makes his information any more reliable or trustworthy at face value. The fact that he has written books on downtown and Oklahoma City development and that he has written several columns about it is what gives his words weight and his name credibility. It works just the same on the internet. Several posters here have earned credibility with their work and I don't need to know their other names or where they live to accept their information. I don't even care. In fact, I get better and more timely information here than from Steve Lackmeyer, generally and I hold each one of them just as accountable for the information. Sure, there are several posters that show up that are less than genuine, but I don't see how that's any different than anything I see on TV or in papers.

The reality is that there are just as many whacko commentators offering their perspective in traditional media and their lack of anonymity does nothing specifically to increase their credibility or even heighten the relevancy of their information or opinion. And, if you think about it, the fact that they are paid to provide us with their commentary and that money is generated by advertising, and not by some sort of truth consortium that verifies their information and bases their pay on its accuracy, automatically should subject it to even more scrutiny.

So, really, what I am saying is not that the internet is some sort of bastion of truth and that its existence will end deception and corruption. I'm just saying that traditional media should be subject to just as much skepticism and verification as any information found in digital media. For every criticism of information or discussions on the internet, there is a similar short coming found in traditional media. However, the good thing about the internet is that the medium itself offers a way to almost instantly scrutinize, verify, and cross reference any information found on it. No other medium offers that capability, which is why I feel that the internet is inherently a much better forum than, say, newspapers for such discussions to take place.

And really, to make the point, all you have to do is look at the column in this thread. Steve takes a shot a anonymous concerned citizens, while quoting an anonymous developer. He seems to think that anonymity within his medium is worthy, while anonymity on the internet warrants immediate discrediting based on the anonymity.

So we should be asking ourselves 1) why does the medium change the criteria for what is acceptable information? and 2) what motivation does the author have to try and discredit an entire medium instead of actually discrediting the information contained in that medium? Really, it's very similar to the old debating trick of categorizing a retort in an unfavorable light when the content of the retort can't be readily disproved or rebutted based on merit.

MalibuSooner and BDP...

Very well said. The whole idea of calling it a "conspiracy theory" is pretty far out there - that's another great point. BDP, the quoting anonymous sources while bashing anonymity was quite the paradox wasn't it? Both of you made a lot of very good points.

The more I've thought about this the angrier I have become. He could have retreated from his previous column (or I'm sure Steve would say "clarified") and further explained his thoughts about OCURA without resorting to the shot across the bow of this forum. From what I have seen, the people here have been kind and helpful to him in the time he's been posting here - anonymous or not. The attacks in the column were mean-spirited and truly cheap shots.

He could have retreated from his previous column (or I'm sure Steve would say "clarified") and further explained his thoughts about OCURA without resorting to the shot across the bow of this forum.

I agree with that fully.

Steve, you wrote the original article where you questioned the process. Next time someone calls you out, take responsibility for your own actions instead of kicking the dog.

This whole experience has caused me to lose respect for Steve. He's a lot like Washington reporters who get too cozy with their subjects. What's odd is that Steve is no more an insider than several people on this board, who are VERY involved with what's happening downtown. What an ignorant and/or deliberately misleading statement on his part.

What's more: it is the journalist's role to provide a watchdog to organizations who make decisions and spend money on behalf of the public. In this case, Steve belittled the very real concerns presented on this board for the last two years or so.

FACT: Urban Renewal is secretive.

FACT: Urban Renewal is populated with people like Stanton Young. Not a good old boy? Steve, seriously, what are you smoking pal? May I try some?

FACT: The projects Urban Renewal has overseen over the last thirty years have largely proven to be middling disappointments, colossal misfires, or unmitigated disasters.

FACT: Citizens who attend OCURA meetings and ask questions are treated with malign indifference or overt hostility.

FACT: The very existence of OCURA has a history that includes the Gaylord family's influence, for better or worse.

Steve owes this board an apology. I hope everyone doesn't just turn around and kiss his rear end should he return all of a sudden.

I'd like to see how they treat a citizens at their "open" meetings. I bet it would be much harder to ignore them if we got a group of 20 or so of us and crammed in the room.

I agree soonerguru and jbrown. That last article made me lose alot of respect for Steve and sticking up for the little guy. I'm sure his superiors in the good old boy network reared him, but I think he could of handled it differently. His articles WERE the only reason I still bought the Daily Oklahoman (that and the Target ad on Sunday). I've been to OCURA meetings and they basically dust you off and are very hostile. I like jbrowns idea, let's find out when the next OCURA meeting is (will be hard since they don't make them very known or announce them a few hours before they start) and let's see how many of us can attend. Count me in!

me too of course

I'd definitely attend the meetings. If for nothing else, just to observe. I've participated in other oversight and steering meetings in the city and I'd be interesting to see how they operate. The hard part is being able to clear your schedule when they decide to have a meeting. Certainly, they're note scheduled completely at a whim. Someone has to know a couple of days before, right?

I just called and was told the next meeting is:

Wednesday, January 16th
10AM
204 N. Robinson Suite 2400


Before anyone attends, you should call to confirm as they often reschedule.

You might also want to call and request minutes from the last few meetings so you can see what is going to be discussed:

405-235-3771

They charge a small copy and mail fee.

It will be very telling whether Steve is willing to comment here or not. Since he's a regular poster, I can't imagine he won't read this thread.

I think we can read quite a bit into whether he chooses to defend his opinion piece here or not.

I've notices he's posted on the boards lately.

I agree, mid, I agree.

I actually hope Steve quits reading this board. I am fearful he might take some of the opinions on here as having merit and report them as representing the majority of OKC, which could not be further from reality.

Which ones do not have merit and which ones do? And, of course, why or why not?

Yep.. you don't get to make drive-by quips like that and not explain yourself.

I actually hope Steve quits reading this board. I am fearful he might take some of the opinions on here as having merit and report them as representing the majority of OKC, which could not be further from reality.


Hey -- that's life, not just this forum. He has to cull through opinions and separate fact from fiction whatever the source may be.

Hey -- that's life, not just this forum. He has to cull through opinions and separate fact from fiction whatever the source may be.

... and if he can't do that, maybe many of our misgivings about the Oklahoman are valid:ohno:

I actually hope Steve quits reading this board.

Steve can't quit reading this board.

Anyone reading his stories over the past year or so knows that he gets at least 40% of his leads and ideas from the very medium that he trashed. That medium being the one and only OKCTalk.

The process goes something like this:

1. OKCTalk asks a question or initiates a conversation piece regarding some city happening or function.

2. Steve repackages that conversation - includes a few quotes from person x and y (both of whom work downtown) - signs his name at the bottom of the doc and turns it in.

3. We see the article and congratulate him on his work.

This system was freakin' running like clockwork until last week. Hmmm.... Maybe he recognized the pattern and this entire drama was an attempt to seperate himself.

A weaning away of sorts. Abandoning the teat. Whatever.

I know Russell Perry personally and he's a good man. He's done well and has given back to his community. Nevertheless, there is no way on earth he should be making decisions concerning urban renewal. And he knows it.

I noticed that Steve responded to another thread today or yesterday. Wonder why he won't respond to this one? He has obviously used this board to some degree, only to smite us in print. That's his prerogative, of course, but his non-reply on this thread indicates our commentary is cutting a little close to the bone. Remember: traditional media types resent this type of medium, even though they use it all the time.

I hope Steve does stay and I'm sure he'll at least lurk.

He's entitled to his opinion just as we all are and I've long ago accepted that the Oklahoman is never going to make waves or really engage in investigative journalism.


But as much as he tried to dismiss this forum, several of his columns actually illustrate that people are paying attention to what is discussed here.

And it's pretty easy to distill the good ideas and constructive criticism from the hyperbole and vitriol.