Both parties know their numbers are not fair.

So I guess I'll just join BoulderSooner and wait for the results of ED.

There are a lot of factors to consider for price, and value, what a property is worth. On the one hand, this is a unique property. It's a historic rail station in an area without much rail access. That alone gives it substantial value. It's also in a high demand part of town. Downtown land is valuable. It's also an old art deco building in a high visibility location. That has value.

I have no doubt that the city lowballed the Brewers on the $2.5 million. I wouldn't sell it for that. On the other hand, the First National Center just sold for $5.3 million. Of course that property has a history of problems and requires significant investment to make profitable. So we've got a potentially very valuable piece of land in a high profile area with fairly exclusive access to rail lines, and historic architecture to boot.

On the other hand, the Brewers aren't planning on running a railroad. Right now the lines have very limited service, mostly as a novelty. The rail aspect only adds value when you know what the city plans to do with it. It isn't like the Brewers have a successful passenger rail business operating out of the building, nor have they shown plans to start one. It's difficult for them to argue that they should be compensated for a potential revenue stream that they have never pursued. Eminient Domain generally doesn't pay you for something "you might get around to eventually". They've been using it as a parking lot and leasing a small amount of space to a candy shop. If you look at replacement value, what is the going price downtown for a small amount amount of office space and a parking lot? The $2.5M looks a lot better like that.

Then you've got what the market will pay. What would the Brewers be able to sell that property for? Even if they are currently underutilizing the space, that space has value. It is still connected to those rail lines, and they purchased it with that knowledge. If I have an acre of land in Manhattan, and all I have on it are two trees and a hammock, I'm definitely underutilizing the property. I'm entitled to what it would sell for, and not just the value of some hammock-space. Of course in this instance, the sale price is affected by the knowledge that the city wants to do something with the land. This makes it difficult to gauge value because the Brewers bought it before downtown started booming again. Of course the Brewers haven't shown any kind of offers that people have made on the property lately, either.

These are the types of factors that have to be weighed. I'll make a ballpark guess that the Brewers get about 7 million out of it. Total shot in the dark, might be completely wrong.

I just would like all the facts to be considered. I know there are not many fans of the Brewer's on this forum, but
they were there when no one else was and made the risk. We would not have been in this situation without them. Love em or hate em.

If I were the city I would just decide to build a new transit station at the odd shaped lot next to the railway at 4th and Broadway (where the CC headquarters was slated. More room, close by parking for travelers and rental car companies, and they can build something suited specifically to the needs, not adapt something not most efficient. Then the Brewers can see what the value of their building is outside of the use that is publicly supported.

If I were the city I would just decide to build a new transit station at the odd shaped lot next to the railway at 4th and Broadway (where the CC headquarters was slated. More room, close by parking for travelers and rental car companies, and they can build something suited specifically to the needs, not adapt something not most efficient. Then the Brewers can see what the value of their building is outside of the use that is publicly supported.

You know, putting it north of the Tinker cut-off solves the issue of having to turn the train around. Coupled with the closure of many of the crossings for the quite-zone and I am thinking they should re-evaluate the location.

Great idea. The depot space is too small IMHO.

You know, putting it north of the Tinker cut-off solves the issue of having to turn the train around. Coupled with the closure of many of the crossings for the quite-zone and I am thinking they should re-evaluate the location.

Here is a case where using the historic building may not be the best answer. Let Brewer make it a museum or restaurant or something and let the city get a more suited location. Land is available.

Across the street at the bank drive through would then become more valuable too. Maybe use it for car, bike, motor-scooter rental area, and cab station.

If I were the city I would just decide to build a new transit station at the odd shaped lot next to the railway at 4th and Broadway (where the CC headquarters was slated. More room, close by parking for travelers and rental car companies, and they can build something suited specifically to the needs, not adapt something not most efficient. Then the Brewers can see what the value of their building is outside of the use that is publicly supported.

That's not bad at all.....certainly should be considered as an option. Width of the elevated platform may require some work but nothing that couldn't be solved.

Yeah, you could put it between NW 3rd and NW 4th, where the Chamber of Commerce was thinking about building. Would solve a lot of problems.

And I think one of those streets was considered for a streetcar path as well. You could get off the train and hop right on a streetcar.

If I were the city I would just decide to build a new transit station at the odd shaped lot next to the railway at 4th and Broadway (where the CC headquarters was slated. More room, close by parking for travelers and rental car companies, and they can build something suited specifically to the needs, not adapt something not most efficient. Then the Brewers can see what the value of their building is outside of the use that is publicly supported.

that lot is worth more than the sante fe

Yes, it may be worth more, but would be WORTH more. The only reason the old station is more valuable to the city is IF they intend to tear down the COX, the arena with it.

that lot is worth more than the sante fe

I thought this lot was bought by SandRidge last year ? For 1.7 million therabouts. They would probably take less right now, and would be a very good fit.

I thought this lot was bought by SandRidge last year ? For 1.7 million therabouts. They would probably take less right now, and would be a very good fit.

the sante fe is the very good fit ..

the sante fe is the very good fit ..

Whatever the difference in cost between constructing a new depot at the Chamber site and a trestle to connect to the Tinker/NE line would be the deciding factors between the two sites in my mind. The Santa Fe depot will work fine if that connection is restored but what are the possibilities for future growth? I have seen the "plan" for the SF Transit hub and it will work well but reach capacity fairly quick. Would the chamber site offer any advantages other than not dealing with the Brewers, and more parking available close by? Good discussion.

Whatever the difference in cost between constructing a new depot at the Chamber site and a trestle to connect to the Tinker/NE line would be the deciding factors between the two sites in my mind. The Santa Fe depot will work fine if that connection is restored but what are the possibilities for future growth? I have seen the "plan" for the SF Transit hub and it will work well but reach capacity fairly quick. Would the chamber site offer any advantages other than not dealing with the Brewers, and more parking available close by? Good discussion.

the site has already been decided ... there was a hub study ... and the city is moving forward with the ED process . .. the site will be in the cities hands by the end of the summer ..

the sante fe site .. has enough room for 50 plus years

Just a few things. I believe the former Chamber site was evaluated early on in the process. The historic Santa Fe building itself was not the driving force behind the site location. The "train modeling" shows estimated capacity as far out as potentially 65 years at Santa Fe. So, not sure if reaching capacity "fairly quick" is the best way to describe it.

I think there is a perception issue about the Santa Fe as to not being big enough. But that isn't the case in the modeling. Its "barely" big enough, but big enough still for 65 years of projected growth including enhanced Amtrak service.

One other thing to keep in mind about the Chamber site, it would in theory require crossing the BNSF mainline to bring trains to the west side alignment for service to Tinker, NE side, and Tulsa. Santa Fe enables the freight tracks to go through the middle of the facility without crossovers.

So there are operational issues that folks need to factor rather than the space available itself. Untitled Art Space's historic building is to the east. Kind of hard to flare tracks that way.

Hutch is the best person to ask about all these issues. But maybe this helps clarify.

I just would like all the facts to be considered. I know there are not many fans of the Brewer's on this forum, but
they were there when no one else was and made the risk. We would not have been in this situation without them. Love em or hate em.

Thank you for sharing all that information and perspective -- very helpful.

I'm sure the courts will determine a fair price for both the Brewers and the City.

Just a few things. I believe the former Chamber site was evaluated early on in the process. The historic Santa Fe building itself was not the driving force behind the site location. The "train modeling" shows estimated capacity as far out as potentially 65 years at Santa Fe. So, not sure if reaching capacity "fairly quick" is the best way to describe it.

I think there is a perception issue about the Santa Fe as to not being big enough. But that isn't the case in the modeling. Its "barely" big enough, but big enough still for 65 years of projected growth including enhanced Amtrak service.

One other thing to keep in mind about the Chamber site, it would in theory require crossing the BNSF mainline to bring trains to the west side alignment for service to Tinker, NE side, and Tulsa. Santa Fe enables the freight tracks to go through the middle of the facility without crossovers.

So there are operational issues that folks need to factor rather than the space available itself. Untitled Art Space's historic building is to the east. Kind of hard to flare tracks that way.

Hutch is the best person to ask about all these issues. But maybe this helps clarify.

Thanks. Great info and very helpful in understanding the options.

Just a few things. I believe the former Chamber site was evaluated early on in the process. The historic Santa Fe building itself was not the driving force behind the site location. The "train modeling" shows estimated capacity as far out as potentially 65 years at Santa Fe. So, not sure if reaching capacity "fairly quick" is the best way to describe it.

I think there is a perception issue about the Santa Fe as to not being big enough. But that isn't the case in the modeling. Its "barely" big enough, but big enough still for 65 years of projected growth including enhanced Amtrak service.

One other thing to keep in mind about the Chamber site, it would in theory require crossing the BNSF mainline to bring trains to the west side alignment for service to Tinker, NE side, and Tulsa. Santa Fe enables the freight tracks to go through the middle of the facility without crossovers.

So there are operational issues that folks need to factor rather than the space available itself. Untitled Art Space's historic building is to the east. Kind of hard to flare tracks that way.

Hutch is the best person to ask about all these issues. But maybe this helps clarify.

I did not realize the "Chamber" site had been considered. Today was the first time I heard it mentioned and it sounded like a decent option should something strange happen that would preclude the Santa Fe Depot from becoming the hub. As long as the wye can be rebuilt to permit easy movement toward points east and northeast, I don't see any reason it can't work very well especially with the availability of space on the east side of the platform and line of sight to Bricktown and the CBD. (Of course this assumes the necessary changes to EK Gaylord will be done....)

Just a few things. I believe the former Chamber site was evaluated early on in the process. The historic Santa Fe building itself was not the driving force behind the site location. The "train modeling" shows estimated capacity as far out as potentially 65 years at Santa Fe. So, not sure if reaching capacity "fairly quick" is the best way to describe it.

I think there is a perception issue about the Santa Fe as to not being big enough. But that isn't the case in the modeling. Its "barely" big enough, but big enough still for 65 years of projected growth including enhanced Amtrak service.

One other thing to keep in mind about the Chamber site, it would in theory require crossing the BNSF mainline to bring trains to the west side alignment for service to Tinker, NE side, and Tulsa. Santa Fe enables the freight tracks to go through the middle of the facility without crossovers.

So there are operational issues that folks need to factor rather than the space available itself. Untitled Art Space's historic building is to the east. Kind of hard to flare tracks that way.

Hutch is the best person to ask about all these issues. But maybe this helps clarify.

It looks like they could construct a bridge over the tracks so that you could board the Tinker-bound train.

So I guess I'll just join BoulderSooner and wait for the results of ED.

Yeah, this just needs to be arbitrated and not dragged out for a decade while the Brewers are waiting for the last possible day to respond to letters and notices just to claim they were never invited to the table.

Yeah, this just needs to be arbitrated and not dragged out for a decade while the Brewers are waiting for the last possible day to respond to letters and notices just to claim they were never invited to the table.

Now that it's in ED proceedings, it'll proceed relatively quickly (less than a year). Most ED cases at the City are concluded within a few months.

It looks like they could construct a bridge over the tracks so that you could board the Tinker-bound train.

Look at Fort Worth's transportation center. There are no bridges to the other tracks, there are platforms and crossing sidewalks. This is probably what you will see up on the viaduct.

Again, the issue is crossing the freight tracks. Both crossing them in as a pedestrian and as a commuter train. BNSF wants to be able to go through there unimpeded. Plus you have the "quiet zone" issue. If the the BNSF tracks are not isolated away from pedestrians, it would probably require blowing their horn going through the station.

Santa Fe Station solves this problem by having enough room both to the east and the west to provide BNSF tracks through the middle.

Presumably, Edmond to Tinker to Norman would be completely isolated to the east side. AMTRAK would remain on the west side. Pedestrians would be connected to either side re utilizing and expanding the tunnel that already exists.

I'm not saying that the former Chamber site couldn't potentially work and may have other spacial advantages, but we have a resolution to all of these problems in Santa Fe; as far as the trains and pedestrians go.

I have no doubt that the city lowballed the Brewers on the $2.5 million.

Well, duh! :-) You don't start a negotiation by offering more than you are willing to pay (or less than you are willing to settle for, in the case of the sellers). The price will eventually be negotiated and the parties will hopefully both go away feeling slightly cheated.

What no one here knows, me included, is just what the owners actually own (if you do, and the documentation is online, please post a link!). I am 100% confident the current owners do not own anything related to operation of trains, meaning track, structures to support that track, etc. I'm 100% confident that BNSF or AT&SF (when was it sold, exactly?) would not do that. Does that include the platforms, canopies, etc, that support passenger train service? Less certainty there, but its north of 97% that the railroad didn't sell that either.

Look at Fort Worth's transportation center. There are no bridges to the other tracks, there are platforms and crossing sidewalks. This is probably what you will see up on the viaduct.

Doubtful. I can't imaging BNSF allowing that. They are trying to close crossings at grade, not add more.

There is or was a tunnel that goes or went to the other side.

Tracks run all along the waterfront in Seattle and trains go through there all the time.

They don't even have crossing guards on most of it.

Sure, and at hundreds if not thousands of other places in the nation. But BNSF isn't going to allow another one on property they own. And rightfully so!

What no one here knows, me included, is just what the owners actually own (if you do, and the documentation is online, please post a link!.

The Brewers only own the Santa Fe Depot building and the small, narrow parcel of property that it sits on between Reno and Sheridan and between E.K. Gaylord and the west line of the BNSF railroad right-of-way, which is the west retaining wall of the elevated terminal and guideway. They do not own or control any structures, facilities or rights associated with the BNSF railroad right-of-way lying between the east and west retaining walls of the elevated terminal and guideway.

Here's a plat from the Oklahoma County Assessor showing the Santa Fe Station property owned by Bricktown Real Estate LLC (Brewers) highlighted in yellow.

3800

The total size of the property is 1.35 acres.

Here's a link to the property details:

Oklahoma County Assesor - Santa Fe Propertry (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R133563000)

There is or was a tunnel that goes or went to the other side.

A quarter to half of the tunnel is still there. It provides access to the Amtrak platform. The rest of it is behind a sheet rocked wall. The other remaining part that was the tunnel is filled in behind a steel bulkhead and would have to be re-excavated.

I have the original plans but they are too large to post.

Sid, Seattle is a great alternative example, but the individual railroads often have their own rules.

Irregardless, you wouldn't want a passing freight train bifurcating your transfer at a hub. You might miss your own train transfer! lol

Also not going to swear by it, but I think Fort Worth's freight activity is on the easternmost tracks. I don't think pedestrians are crossing freight tracks but rather Texas Eagle passenger tracks.

You guys probably already know this but here thousands and thousands of tourists cross a very active railroad tracks and it is a quiet zone:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=47.605639,-122.339206&spn=0.002844,0.005284&t=h&z=18

https://maps.google.com/?ll=47.605243,-122.339702&spn=0.000358,0.00066&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=47.605243,-122.339702&panoid=m1wYuaYComFU_ag6ZMYpOg&cbp=12,173.65,,0,32.44

Tracks run all along the waterfront in Seattle and trains go through there all the time.

They don't even have crossing guards on most of it.

That's safe. In Ohio there's a public campaign that "bad railroad crossings kill good drivers, report a bad crossing here" or something like that.

A quarter to half of the tunnel is still there. It provides access to the Amtrak platform. The rest of it is behind a sheet rocked wall. The other remaining part that was the tunnel is filled in behind a steel bulkhead and would have to be re-excavated.

Yep yep. I've taken the train down to Fort Worth. It's really pretty cool. If you look at the history pics on retrometrookc or whatever that website is, you'll see that there was also another stairwell that came up and out between additional tracks (which there used to be 6 or so tracks up there!

I have the original plans but they are too large to post.

Sid, Seattle is a great alternative example, but the individual railroads often have their own rules.

Seattle is BNSF territory just like here. At least we have one thing in common ;-)

Irregardless, you wouldn't want a passing freight train bifurcating your transfer at a hub. You might miss your own train transfer! lol

Also not going to swear by it, but I think Fort Worth's freight activity is on the easternmost tracks. I don't think pedestrians are crossing freight tracks but rather Texas Eagle passenger tracks.

You are absolutely correct, but technically, you're still crossing tracks to get to the other platform.



Bolded answers...

The Brewers only own the Santa Fe Depot building and the small, narrow parcel of property that it sits on between Reno and Sheridan and between E.K. Gaylord and the west line of the BNSF railroad right-of-way, which is the west retaining wall of the elevated terminal and guideway. They do not own or control any structures, facilities or rights associated with the BNSF railroad right-of-way lying between the east and west retaining walls of the elevated terminal and guideway.

Here's a plat from the Oklahoma County Assessor showing the Santa Fe Station property owned by Bricktown Real Estate LLC (Brewers) highlighted in yellow.

Thank you!! That answers many questions. $2.5M isn't sounding as far off as the other party's figure!

The next MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting is next Wed, June 26th, at 3:30 PM, 420 Main Street, 10th floor Conference Room.

I'd like to say, this next meeting is going to be very important as now we have a full technical assessment by experts. For the first time, route analysis has included every conceivable factor. Expect to see 2 - 4 main spine alternates, 3 - 4 Midtown service alternates, 1 - 2 Bricktown alternates, and a plan to service MAPS 3 Park and Convention Center as they come online in the MAPS 3 timeline.

Also expect a great deal of discussion, input, and debate. And also expect significant resistance from those who are starting to realize this project is actually becoming a reality.

The next MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting is next Wed, June 26th, at 3:30 PM, 420 Main Street, 10th floor Conference Room.

I'd like to say, this next meeting is going to be very important as now we have a full technical assessment by experts. For the first time, route analysis has included every conceivable factor. Expect to see 2 - 4 main spine alternates, 3 - 4 Midtown service alternates, 1 - 2 Bricktown alternates, and a plan to service MAPS 3 Park and Convention Center as they come online in the MAPS 3 timeline.

Also expect a great deal of discussion, input, and debate. And also expect significant resistance from those who are starting to realize this project is actually becoming a reality.

That's fantastic news. Thanks for the update.

The next MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting is next Wed, June 26th, at 3:30 PM, 420 Main Street, 10th floor Conference Room.

I'd like to say, this next meeting is going to be very important as now we have a full technical assessment by experts. For the first time, route analysis has included every conceivable factor. Expect to see 2 - 4 main spine alternates, 3 - 4 Midtown service alternates, 1 - 2 Bricktown alternates, and a plan to service MAPS 3 Park and Convention Center as they come online in the MAPS 3 timeline.

Also expect a great deal of discussion, input, and debate. And also expect significant resistance from those who are starting to realize this project is actually becoming a reality.

Thankfully, the ones that actually realize this project is becoming a reality are only on here...

Thankfully, the ones that actually realize this project is becoming a reality are only on here...

Excellent point. There's a lot of manufactured outrage and controversy. The fact is, OKC is getting a streetcar and it's going to indelibly change how we view our city. I fully expect some BS stories by "journalists" trying to suggest otherwise in the coming days. If you're a streetcar or transit advocate, prepare yourself for the stories and recognize them for what they are: rhetorical vapor to gin up page views and ratings.

When you see these stories, try to remind yourself that this has already been approved by the tax-paying voters, and remember that it was (and remains) a popular initiative.

IMHO, that was uncalled for

From Steve today Oklahoma City Streetcar: Prepare for a Battle | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-streetcar-prepare-for-a-battle/article/3855641)

Another column with several factual errors. Some of which pointed out by

Ernest Istook

Shame on you Steve for false reporting. No light rail system was part of the original MAPS. That proposed only a high-cost, low passenger volume downtown rail trolley that would have carried people in a circle that was smaller than 2 miles. The city's own official study predicted only a tiny ridership. Most people never read that study but I did. So instead I helped the city get funds for affordable and practical rubber-tire trolleys that were a big success.
I interviewed Randall O'Toole on KTOK only because YOUR newspaper had just printed his letter commenting about the current plan. I took absolutely no position on that plan myself. Why don't you criticize your employer for getting O'… Continue Reading

From Steve today Oklahoma City Streetcar: Prepare for a Battle | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-streetcar-prepare-for-a-battle/article/3855641)

Another column with several factual errors. Some of which pointed out by

Ernest Istook

Shame on you Steve for false reporting. No light rail system was part of the original MAPS. That proposed only a high-cost, low passenger volume downtown rail trolley that would have carried people in a circle that was smaller than 2 miles. The city's own official study predicted only a tiny ridership. Most people never read that study but I did. So instead I helped the city get funds for affordable and practical rubber-tire trolleys that were a big success.
I interviewed Randall O'Toole on KTOK only because YOUR newspaper had just printed his letter commenting about the current plan. I took absolutely no position on that plan myself. Why don't you criticize your employer for getting O'… Continue Reading

Right on cue. Just as predicted. And there's more bubbling up behind the scenes. I will say that Steve points out the hypocrisy of Istook quite well, and exposes Shadid's position (as if we didn't know at this point) on the project.

What Steve does not mention is that Ed Shadid opposes MAPS in general, and has never voted in any of the MAPS elections. One would expect his contrary voice. Also, Shadid seems to mistakenly conclude that he can kill the streetcar project and magically move money into the bus system, a quixotic position with no basis in reality.

Attention OKCTalk members who support the streetcar in particular and MAPS 3 in general: gird yourselves for battle. I'm guessing Shadid is going for broke with a last-ditch effort to kill the project. Make your opinions known. If successful, Shadid's efforts could permanently damage the MAPS brand and cause an intractable breach between young voters and city government -- not to mention destroy one of the most transformative of the MAPS projects.

Should be noted that Steve already removed the light rail reference from his column

I may have to show up on Wednesday...with popcorn.

I think Shadid is perfectly happy breaking faith with the voters because he doesn't care about them. In addition, he doesn't care about MAPS. He never bothered to vote so clearly could not have been invested in city improvement as we define it. He has his own agenda and doesn't really care who disagrees with it, as long as he can accomplish it from what I can tell. And, he is prepared to use subterfuge, innuendo and misinformation to achieve his goals. I don't ever remember being as angry with a politician from this state since Ernest Istook, coincidentally (or not). I actually thought he would be a welcome addition to the City Council and I applauded his election. But, in his own way, he is as anti-partisan as any member of the Council I can remember and as stubborn and misguided as Brian Walters. The party may be different but the attitude is the same. We risk a city council as divided as that in Tulsa if he achieves a higher office, IMO.

I'm also fascinated by the timing of all this. O'Toole's commentary showed up in the DOK just prior to the route being presented to our committee. His first article was written in 2006 and another a year ago. Ernest Istook (who has been off the landscape politically as far as I knew) suddenly has the itch to discuss the streetcar. Steve ties it all together in a nice neat package with some Shadid thrown in for good measure. Why now? Why not 1 or 2 or 3 years ago? Politics make strange bedfellows.

I think Shadid is perfectly happy breaking faith with the voters because he doesn't care about them. In addition, he doesn't care about MAPS. He never bothered to vote so clearly could not have been invested in city improvement as we define it. He has his own agenda and doesn't really care who disagrees with it, as long as he can accomplish it from what I can tell. And, he is prepared to use subterfuge, innuendo and misinformation to achieve his goals. I don't ever remember being as angry with a politician from this state since Ernest Istook, coincidentally (or not). I actually thought he would be a welcome addition to the City Council and I applauded his election. But, in his own way, he is as anti-partisan as any member of the Council I can remember and as stubborn and misguided as Brian Walters. The party may be different but the attitude is the same. We risk a city council as divided as that in Tulsa if he achieves a higher office, IMO.

He doesn't belong to a political party. He is a party of one. He belongs to the party of Ed Shadid. His unwillingness to work with others is absolutely toxic to this city. I too applauded and supported his election -- and appreciated his courage to stand up to some folks who no one else appeared to have the nerve to confront.

But I cannot continue to support someone who will not work with others to achieve common goals. His ideological rigidity, though ostensibly from the left side of the aisle, is rather the same as the worst teabagger in its fecklessness.

Simply put, if the council vote and choose to not do the streetcar and do something else, that will be the end of MAPS as we know it. The only way it will pass again will be there are specifics in the next vote.

Depending on what happens, we might consider taking another approach: Can a councilperson be recalled? What would it take?

Simply put, if the council vote and choose to not do the streetcar and do something else, that will be the end of MAPS as we know it. The only way it will pass again will be there are specifics in the next vote.

But, that only has impact with the Council if they care about MAPS. If some members don't care about the voters, then it doesn't matter.

I'm also fascinated by the timing of all this. O'Toole's commentary showed up in the DOK just prior to the route being presented to our committee. His first article was written in 2006 and another a year ago. Ernest Istook (who has been off the landscape politically as far as I knew) suddenly has the itch to discuss the streetcar. Steve ties it all together in a nice neat package with some Shadid thrown in for good measure. Why now? Why not 1 or 2 or 3 years ago? Politics make strange bedfellows.

The timing is deliberate. Isn't the transit subcommittee making its big presentation this week? No coincidence there.

The timing is deliberate. Isn't the transit subcommittee making its big presentation this week? No coincidence there.

Aren't Council members usually briefed in advance of major MAPS announcements, consultants reports, etc.?

I didn't mean to necessarily imply that Steve is on the side of the streetcar naysayers in my comment above, as he did indicate both sides of the argument, but I do question whether he is being manipulated by someone who wants more press for anti-streetcar commentary.

It seems too convenient for the (funded) streetcar $$ to be diverted to the (unfunded) convention center hotel...I'm too cynical.

Which makes me wonder what will happen to the Amtrak station if the city acquires it via E.D. lol!

It seems too convenient for the (funded) streetcar $$ to be diverted to the (unfunded) convention center hotel...I'm too cynical.

Which makes me wonder what will happen to the Amtrak station if the city acquires it via E.D. lol!

No need for cynicism here. Steve's column makes it clear. Shadid wants to kill the streetcar project, and the fact we know he is not a fan of the convention center, means he has other ideas for the money. This isn't a "Chamber junta" deal. This is an Ed Shadid deal.

Should be noted that Steve already removed the light rail reference from his column

i read both blogs/articles and i'm not sure what chunk was deleted. one has FB comments, which tend to get heated, and one has capcha filters, its almost like 2 separate convo's...

Oklahoma City Streetcar: Prepare for a Battle | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-streetcar-prepare-for-a-battle/article/3855641)

Oklahoma City Streetcar: Prepare for a Battle | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/06/23/oklahoma-city-streetcar-prepare-for-a-battle/)

I'll admit, I'm a late witness to the battle(s), but apparently B_S_ is one of the thorns causing ...certain people...to abstain, temporarily (apparently) to abstain from posting on this site. Now I know...

Noted.

As you were.

I didn't mean to necessarily imply that Steve is on the side of the streetcar naysayers in my comment above, as he did indicate both sides of the argument, but I do question whether he is being manipulated by someone who wants more press for anti-streetcar commentary.

I'm more curious about the Oklahoman in general. Why are they giving voice to that CATO loon?

More importantly, I cannot recall (and I may have forgotten), but has the Oklahoman actually run a comprehensive piece about the streetcar itself, and how it will be utilized? What economic development benefits it bring? How it would function in a multi-modal transit system? I don't recall reading anything of substance in the last two years about the streetcar.

I've read articles in the Gazette and Journal Record. Most of the stuff I've read in the DOK about the streetcar mentions it as part of a larger wrap story or as something associated with BS controversies.

It's been a few years since we voted. Wouldn't it make sense for the Oklahoman to write more in-depth articles about the MAPS projects coming online?

I may be off base here, but if there is any slant to the Oklahoman's articles about the streetcar, it's that this MAPS project is somehow imperiled, or "may not happen." Very little informative journalism about the moving parts of the project: where the route may go, how this may affect local businesses and transit-oriented development, how it may relieve congestion and parking problems during Thunder games, etc.

It seems the Oklahoman favors the "there's a controversy a-brewin'" angle versus providing taxpayers and readers the information they're too busy to get themselves; specifically, what will this streetcar do for our city?

I'm trying to be charitable here, but this is not "reader service" journalism. Fits the "horse race" or "he said she said" model that provides very little depth of understanding.

So now it's time to see if OKC can/will actually progress into a big city. This is put up or shut up time.

I think the only controversy that exists is in the minds of Ed Shadid and Steve Lackmeyer. I can't think of anyone other than those two who seem to push an anti-streetcar agenda.

It amazes me that some of you see Steve as taking an anti-streetcar agenda. I read the article as being just the opposite and it included a promise that he will carry on the fight against the anti group. Steve lets his bias show in almost every article he writes. It makes me think that he thinks he works for the editorial department rather than business. The Oklahoman would be better served if articles like this stay dead center on facts and not let personal bias enter into the articles. If a journalist lets their bias show in a news story instead of an editorial, jobs can be lost and it can reach as high as the editor.

It amazes me that some of you see Steve as taking an anti-streetcar agenda. I read the article as being just the opposite and it included a promise that he will carry on the fight against the anti group. Steve lets his bias show in almost every article he writes. It makes me think that he thinks he works for the editorial department rather than business. The Oklahoman would be better served if articles like this stay dead center on facts and not let personal bias enter into the articles. If a journalist lets their bias show in a news story instead of an editorial, jobs can be lost and it can reach as high as the editor.

I don't make that claim. I have no idea what Steve's position is on the streetcar.

i read both blogs/articles and i'm not sure what chunk was deleted. one has FB comments, which tend to get heated, and one has capcha filters, its almost like 2 separate convo's...

Oklahoma City Streetcar: Prepare for a Battle | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-streetcar-prepare-for-a-battle/article/3855641)

Oklahoma City Streetcar: Prepare for a Battle | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/06/23/oklahoma-city-streetcar-prepare-for-a-battle/)

I'll admit, I'm a late witness to the battle(s), but apparently B_S_ is one of the thorns causing ...certain people...to abstain, temporarily (apparently) to abstain from posting on this site. Now I know...

Noted.

As you were.

the original posting/column said Istook killed Light rail in maps 1 ....... istook pointed out the error in the first viewer comment .... after the fact the column was edited to remove the light rail comment ..

My issue is that there shouldn't even be an article on a "fight". We have commentary published in the DOK, written by someone who has not been to OKC nor who has any known connections to OKC and who clearly doesn't understand MAPS. Then Earnest Istook, who has not been a player in local politics for years and whose only memorable act as a Senator was to meddle in our transit plans is suddenly given a stage. Why now? Why not before the MAPS vote? O'Toole wrote his article in 2006 and then a letter to the editor shows up in the DOK last week? Again, why now? What made him write a letter this week and not years ago? Istook was alive when the MAPS vote took place and was silent. The streetcar passed and none of this should be relevant. By giving these people any voice, which neither deserves by virtue of the fact that they don't live here and have never previously spoken a word about our situation, you give them authenticity and authority they do not deserve. It smacks of behind the scenes meddling and manipulation of Steve and the DOK to me. And I am not a paranoid person.