NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/article/3435843?searched=steve%20hunt&custom_click=search)

Interesting... but if Hunt succeeds this could spell disaster for MAPS 3.

Will Hunt sponsor a take an activist to work day if he is elected?

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/article/3435843?searched=steve%20hunt&custom_click=search)

Interesting... but if Hunt succeeds this could spell disaster for MAPS 3.

No worry. first, I doubt this man can beat Mick (he was elected by the widest margin in city history), and second, the VOTERS approved the projects. The only way they can be changed is another vote of the PEOPLE.

Is Mick going to do any campaigning?

I don't think a Taco Bell employee really has a serious shot at being mayor. I mean Gary Coleman ran for the job of Governor of California... this is a lot like that. A joke.

Sure he'll do campaigning. He'll have commercials that say "I'm Mayor Mick Cornett." And then he'll smile. And then it'll show Kevin Durant jam a basketball.

He's going to roll this guy.

All I have to do is call the DOK and give them some of the PMs he sent me here and his campaign is over before it starts. Or pass along half of his posts here. Or tell them to take a look at his blog.......

All I have to do is call the DOK and give them some of the PMs he sent me here and his campaign is over before it starts. Or pass along half of his posts here. Or tell them to take a look at his blog.......

You could use them as content for a new blog. Some suggested titles:
Activism to Go, Please Pay at Second Window
A Hunt for Reason
Hunt Stunts
Hunting - Bullets Sans Weapon

Ok, back to da snow cave for me before the bunnies find me

Wow. I just found his blog. What a nutbar. I think all Cornett has to do is let Hunt speak for himself. "I encourage every voter in the city to find out more about Mr Hunt. Here is a link to his blog. Meanwhile, enjoy these clips of our exciting NBA team." (followed by series of dunks)

Wow. I just found his blog. What a nutbar. I think all Cornett has to do is let Hunt speak for himself. "I encourage every voter in the city to find out more about Mr Hunt. Here is a link to his blog. Meanwhile, enjoy these clips of our exciting NBA team." (followed by series of dunks)

No link....try it again...okay?

All I have to do is call the DOK and give them some of the PMs he sent me here and his campaign is over before it starts. Or pass along half of his posts here. Or tell them to take a look at his blog.......

I remember, he was way out of line. He cannot to be taken seriously.

No worry. first, I doubt this man can beat Mick (he was elected by the widest margin in city history), and second, the VOTERS approved the projects. The only way they can be changed is another vote of the PEOPLE.

Hmm, but due to the wording of MAPS 3, he *could* use the money for pretty much anything as long as he and the council call it a city improvement. Unless an oversight committee with some veto power is enabled, that is.

The problem with Hunt and his fellow activists is that they're not really *for* anything. You have to have a platform of stuff you actually believe in, to run a successful campaign.

Hmm, but due to the wording of MAPS 3, he *could* use the money for pretty much anything as long as he and the council call it a city improvement. Unless an oversight committee with some veto power is enabled, that is.

As is the case with 99.9% of your postings, WRONG

Steve Hunt for Mayor::LolLolLol:LolLolLol:LolLolLol:LolLolLol

Sorry, I was eating a pretzel and almost choked.

As is the case with 99.9% of your postings, WRONG

???

I'm sorry, but maybe you'll need to clarify your statement.. I'm reading the MAPS 3 literature right now and I see nothing that guarantees any of the projects.

I'm not trying to argue the MAPS 3 decision.. It passed. I couldn't vote on it anyway so the vote's not really anything I care about. I just see that a change in leadership can potentially change the direction of MAPS 3 unless measures are put in place to lock down the money.

Hmm, but due to the wording of MAPS 3, he *could* use the money for pretty much anything as long as he and the council call it a city improvement. Unless an oversight committee with some veto power is enabled, that is.

Nope, we have a weak mayoral system, his vote counts just as one city council person's vote, so he'd have to do a heck of a job convincing the other city council persons. #fail

"filed for the mayor’s race Friday, the last day filing was open for the election"

The fact he waited until the last day to toss his hat in should raise questions right away.

"filed for the mayor’s race Friday, the last day filing was open for the election"

The fact he waited until the last day to toss his hat in should raise questions right away.

why?

Nope, we have a weak mayoral system, his vote counts just as one city council person's vote, so he'd have to do a heck of a job convincing the other city council persons. #fail

Not that much would have to change. If the Mayor is anti-MAPS 3 and there is one existing Council person that was very anti-MAPS. Two of the pro-MAPS 3 Council persons wards actually voted against MAPS 3. A couple of Council persons stated they weren't thrilled with all of the MAPS 3 projects (may be the same as those wards that voted against it). So you have a 5 to 4 split (for/against) right there. Only have to convince 1 more person and any of the "proposed" MAPS 3 projects are in jeopardy. Not saying they are all in danger, but they can be changed by the sitting Council at anytime over the next 7 years or so. A lot can change in that span.

Hard to believe after all of the discussion about MAPS 3 in these threads that anyone believes that any of the projects are set in stone (if someone is new to the discussion that is ok). The only place they are mentioned is in the non-binding Council's Resolution of Intent (even if it was legally binding, only need a majority vote of the Council to change it). Urge all to read the Ballot and especially the Ordinance. Not a single project is mentioned (and the Resolution isn't referenced).

This is one of the problems with the Ballot and Ordinance language that some of us tried to warn others about. The response back was "we trust them".


No worry. first, I doubt this man can beat Mick (he was elected by the widest margin in city history), and second, the VOTERS approved the projects. The only way they can be changed is another vote of the PEOPLE.

Again, the voters didn't approve any specific projects so there isn't any need for the voters to change it. What the voters passed (by the same 54% the original MAPS "barely" passed) was a 1 cent tax to be collected for 7.75 years and to be spent on something (capital improvements). That is pretty much the limitation of it. Sure, there is a lot of verbiage defining what a capital improvement project is in the Ordinance, but after reading it, there is very little that wouldn't appear to qualify.

From the MAPS 3 ordinance (#23,942)


§ 52-23.4. (c) For purposes of this section, the, term "City capital improvement" shall mean without limitation any one or more of the following:

(1) The acquisition of real or personal properties or any interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(2) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, finishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, or maintenance of City buildings, structures, fixtures, or personal properties or on any City real properties or interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(3) Any other type of beneficial or valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, or amelioration of or upon any real property, or any interest therein or appurtenances thereto, belonging to the City, intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it to new or further purposes.

(d) Expenditures to provide City capital improvements under this section may include expenditures for any or all item(s), article(s),cost(s), or expense(s) related in any way to providing a City capital improvement, including without limitation the following:

(1) Payment of the costs of acquiring real or personal properties or interests therein and appurtenances thereto;

(2) Payment of the costs of construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, furnishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, and maintenance;

(3) Payment of architectural costs, engineering costs, or consulting costs;

(4) Payment of project management costs, administrative costs, and legal costs;

(5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a City capital improvement;

(6) Reimbursements or paybacks for expenditures made by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement; and/or

(7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement.

Wow. I just found his blog. What a nutbar. I think all Cornett has to do is let Hunt speak for himself. "I encourage every voter in the city to find out more about Mr Hunt. Here is a link to his blog. Meanwhile, enjoy these clips of our exciting NBA team." (followed by series of dunks)

I would hope that this isnt the only thing he can point to as Achievements of his administration...
As for Hunt, no he wouldnt be a sane choice.
I dont like anyone to take an election for granted...
Such as the Massachusetts US Senate Race, the Democratic State Party, and their candidate assume to have already won...

Link to his blog?

hey, at least there is a choice! 'Mericans love choices when it comes to elections!

Not that much would have to change. If the Mayor is anti-MAPS 3 and there is one existing Council person that was very anti-MAPS. Two of the pro-MAPS 3 Council persons wards actually voted against MAPS 3. A couple of Council persons stated they weren't thrilled with all of the MAPS 3 projects (may be the same as those wards that voted against it). So you have a 5 to 4 split (for/against) right there. Only have to convince 1 more person and any of the "proposed" MAPS 3 projects are in jeopardy. Not saying they are all in danger, but they can be changed by the sitting Council at anytime over the next 7 years or so. A lot can change in that span.

Hard to believe after all of the discussion about MAPS 3 in these threads that anyone believes that any of the projects are set in stone (if someone is new to the discussion that is ok). The only place they are mentioned is in the non-binding Council's Resolution of Intent (even if it was legally binding, only need a majority vote of the Council to change it). Urge all to read the Ballot and especially the Ordinance. Not a single project is mentioned (and the Resolution isn't referenced).

This is one of the problems with the Ballot and Ordinance language that some of us tried to warn others about. The response back was "we trust them".



Again, the voters didn't approve any specific projects so there isn't any need for the voters to change it. What the voters passed (by the same 54% the original MAPS "barely" passed) was a 1 cent tax to be collected for 7.75 years and to be spent on something (capital improvements). That is pretty much the limitation of it. Sure, there is a lot of verbiage defining what a capital improvement project is in the Ordinance, but after reading it, there is very little that wouldn't appear to qualify.

From the MAPS 3 ordinance (#23,942)

There is so many errors in this posting, I'll have to respond later when I have more time.

There is so many errors in this posting, I'll have to respond later when I have more time.

I don't see any errors in Larry's post. Larry is right on - even though only one Councilmember (Walters) actually voted no, two other Wards voted no (Wards 3 and 4 voted against) against their Councilmember's recommendation. Therefore, it is plausible to think that anti-Maps Councilmembers could be voted into office. That would be 3 votes against. Add in an anti-Maps mayor, and it's 4 against. I don't think Larry was saying this will happen, but I think he's right in saying it's plausible.

And, like gmwise noted, NEVER underestimate the competition. That's exactly what happened when Foshee left and Walters slipped in.

plausible, but improbable. Not my city, but I rather suspect the pro maps candidates in the anti maps wards won't find themselves short of funding or volunteers.



(not commenting on which way it oughta go, just what is ee as likely)

I don't see any errors in Larry's post. Larry is right on - even though only one Councilmember (Walters) actually voted no, two other Wards voted no (Wards 3 and 4 voted against) against their Councilmember's recommendation. Therefore, it is plausible to think that anti-Maps Councilmembers could be voted into office. That would be 3 votes against. Add in an anti-Maps mayor, and it's 4 against. I don't think Larry was saying this will happen, but I think he's right in saying it's plausible.

And, like gmwise noted, NEVER underestimate the competition. That's exactly what happened when Foshee left and Walters slipped in.

Cornett vs Hunt----easy to pick this one (like taking candy from a baby)
Walters is a one term council member, he will be out of office before most MAPS3 projects are sent out for bid. (Foshee is running and will definitely reclaim his seat)

Foshee is gunning back for his old seat? For real?

Anti Maps "let's do nothing" crowd just won't give it up.

Anti Maps "let's do nothing" crowd just won't give it up.

They seem to put plenty of energy into taking positions that would force everyone to "do nothing."

Wow, I wish I had a count of how many of you said Maps3 was over and I needed to move on. Politics sure are interesting. Mr. Foshee was at the last Fire union
meeting and said there was no way he would run for Mayor or his old seat. Can't believe y'all would be scared by a little old nobody like Steve Hunt.

Wow, I wish I had a count of how many of you said Maps3 was over and I needed to move on. Politics sure are interesting. Mr. Foshee was at the last Fire union
meeting and said there was no way he would run for Mayor or his old seat. Can't believe y'all would be scared by a little old nobody like Steve Hunt.

discussion does not equal "scared"

Wow, I wish I had a count of how many of you said Maps3 was over and I needed to move on. Politics sure are interesting. Mr. Foshee was at the last Fire union
meeting and said there was no way he would run for Mayor or his old seat. Can't believe y'all would be scared by a little old nobody like Steve Hunt.

Not scared, I have to give it up to him, to run when everyone knows he has 0% percent chance of winning.

As for Foshee running, I'm hearing a different story, was at a luncheon at Willow Creek Golf Club last week and he was definitely singing a different tune.

I don't think Oklahoma City has voted an incumbent mayor out of office in my lifetime.

You want to see OKC fall back into backwardness, just let one of these do-nothing activists get a foothold.

Please dont assume incumbency is a automatic vote yes.
As I previously posted Hunt doesnt sound like a winner much less 2nd choice.

The Founding Fathers were activists, dont discount or belittle them.

I will say that neither of those candidates makes me the least bit happy. Both of them when you filter the crap and rhetoric have solid messages. As odd as Hunt is at least he was willing to discuss issues when Cornett would not debate the Maps3 issues. Let's wait and see what Cornett does about debating Hunt in the next 5 weeks. The city will not elect a southside mayor. Good thing they both live north. I will vote for whoever is going to address city employees, we are facing 8-9% salary reductions. The way Cornett sold Maps3 you would think it would cure cancer, now here we sit with 3/4 of a billion in projects and we can't pay the employees. I think that is exactly what I was saying last October. Am I still a union thug?

I just don't think the new convention center is an efficient use of our dollars. That is my main concern. Very few people wanted it, and since MAPS 3 passed, I've heard concerns that it will take up more than is expected, and individuals who fought for other projects have told me personally they are concerned that their projects will be left behind, or only partially funded. Legitimate concerns without question, unless you rely on fairy tales from Saxum Communications, Visual Image, CMA Strategies and friends.

My interests are in things that make us unique, not things like convention centers and subsidized Bass Pro shops, which make us similar to other big cities. How do you stand out by being like everyone else? That logic made sense in Jr High, but not so much now.

One of the things I am interested in...as I have stated in a Council Meeting, is how Ponca City received write-ups in national publications for their community wireless project, something we could do quite easily here in OKC. And should. Why throw away money to Atlanta based COX and San Antonio based AT&T? It makes no sense to me. Community wi-fi is the future.

Also, it is shameful that our once proud (and significantly less wealthy) city had locally owned WKY broadcasting from the Skirvin (occupying two floors there) and KWTV with it's “world's tallest man-made structure” tower – now only has a small handful of local radio stations (Perry and Taylor owned...the big ones are Citadel and Clear Channel owned, Nevada and Texas corporations) and amongst the major TV stations just Channel 9. The others have been bought off by wealthy investment firms in Ft Worth or by media conglomerates with no interest in our city whatsoever, other than making a buck.

With all this money we have set to come in, why not use it to buy back some of our stations? We need to be telling OUR stories, not these myopic “economies of scale” hoodlums, most of which are about to go bankrupt and trying to squeeze every penny out of every advertiser...thus pricing most local OKC businesses out of ever mentioning their goods and services, it's always some fancy national entity or a tax payer funded Ad Council spot! Whether it be municipally-owned radio (as Dallas has done so well with WRR) or local groups subsidized by MAPS funds, we need to take our media back.

Michael Carrier, President of the CVB told me one of the reasons for building the new Center, was that we need “..higher ceilings for the types of events some people are putting on these days.” Hello? How about using your vast resources and knowledge to court conferences that don't use big displays! With this Convention Center, we are talking about the same amount of money it will cost to build the new jail. Might be good to just gift those funds to the County. That would prevent a dreaded 9.375% sales tax (shopping deterrent of epic proportions) or big new property tax. If they try and sign a contract with Benham or some other fancy outfit, fine let them. What will they do, sue the City for canceling? There is a nice cap on what you can sue for. Take the money and go have an elegant dinner party with it at Red Prime while the good people of Oklahoma City have a bigger party, doing more important things...

These are the kind of actions we can take, amongst many others I have planned, that would put us on the map. I will discuss other things later if anyone is interested.

++ Oh, and Kevin..regarding "...Will Hunt sponsor a take an activist to work day if he is elected?" I will certainly support one for the types of activists you are referring to. Hippie types that sit around and sing songs about how another world is possible, all the while yelling at their girlfriends why they didn't bring home more french fries or whatever...not really my cup of tea. I work my butt off at my job and with my other stuff I do...so you can imagine my disdain for these types.

I would consider an intelligent, rational opponent who has a plan. Steve Hunt falls outside of all three parameters of that description, which makes consideration of him as a candidate completely untenable.

And, I know Jerry Foshee, and the last time I talked to him he was considering running. I don't know if he's made a firm decision yet or not.

Holy crap I worked with this guy in the past. If I was able to vote on the OKC Mayor race he wouldnt get my vote. That is all Im going to say about it.

I didn't think Steve Hunt lived inside the OKC city limits. Did he move recently?

I haven't seen the list of who filed for the Office of Mayor, did Joe "Sarge" Nelson go ahead and file as he said he intended to?

Did Hunt4Mayor actually propose the City of Oklahoma City own local radio stations and be the cities internet service provider?


One of the things I am interested in...as I have stated in a Council Meeting, is how Ponca City received write-ups in national publications for their community wireless project, something we could do quite easily here in OKC. And should. Why throw away money to Atlanta based COX and San Antonio based AT&T? It makes no sense to me. Community wi-fi is the future.

You do realize that even if the city puts in a city-wide wi-fi they still need to outsource it to a service provider don't you.

Did Hunt4Mayor actually propose the City of Oklahoma City own local radio stations and be the cities internet service provider?



You do realize that even if the city puts in a city-wide wi-fi they still need to outsource it to a service provider don't you.

Not to mention city-owned hot zones for public internet access are extreme money losers. The costs to get the projects rolled out are too extreme that you'll never compete with AT&T or COX with their budget rates. Not to mention the issues that come with the reliability of wifi. You'll never get the stability of DSL or Cable - so people will eventually just get annoyed and switch back.

A widespread hot zone is a nice thought, but how to compete with the cell companies who have it across the majority of their networks now?

I haven't seen the list of who filed for the Office of Mayor, did Joe "Sarge" Nelson go ahead and file as he said he intended to?

Only two filed, Cornett and Hunt

This is why we need "none of the above".

This is why we need "none of the above".

Feel free to write that in.

Only two filed, Cornett and HuntThanks for the info. BTW and FWIW, I talked to Foshee last Thursday. When I mentioned the talk going around and ask him if he was running again for his Council seat again, he said no. Of course he could change his mind if he had a mind to, anythings possible.

Wow, Betts, Hunt4mayor rambled on like a madman. How did we let him on the ballot? Him being willing to discuss things goes a long way.

The city already has a wi-fi system set up for police and fire vehicles. Not sure if there is an outside provider.

Wow, Betts, Hunt4mayor rambled on like a madman. How did we let him on the ballot? Him being willing to discuss things goes a long way.

The city already has a wi-fi system set up for police and fire vehicles. Not sure if there is an outside provider.

Of course there is an outside provider.

I know this guy and he is a certified loon. On top of that he truly despises Oklahoma City. He has expressed that many times.

I just don't think the new convention center is an efficient use of our dollars. That is my main concern. Very few people wanted it, and since MAPS 3 passed, I've heard concerns that it will take up more than is expected, and individuals who fought for other projects have told me personally they are concerned that their projects will be left behind, or only partially funded. Legitimate concerns without question, unless you rely on fairy tales from Saxum Communications, Visual Image, CMA Strategies and friends.

So you admit that your speculation is only backed by other speculation?

Neat.


My interests are in things that make us unique, not things like convention centers and subsidized Bass Pro shops, which make us similar to other big cities. How do you stand out by being like everyone else? That logic made sense in Jr High, but not so much now.

How do you stand out? It starts by offering the basic amenities that competitor cities offer. A convention center is part of that equation. We cannot begin to be a host to the sort of money-producing events we want to attract without a facility capable of hosting said events. Clearly you haven't thought this through.


One of the things I am interested in...as I have stated in a Council Meeting, is how Ponca City received write-ups in national publications for their community wireless project, something we could do quite easily here in OKC. And should. Why throw away money to Atlanta based COX and San Antonio based AT&T? It makes no sense to me. Community wi-fi is the future.

As mentioned above, you obviously don't know the first thing about the infrastructure involved here or the manpower necessary to operate that infrastructure.

Apparently your campaign strategy is to through a bunch of **** at the wall to see what sticks, then run with that. Protip: This one ain't gonna stick.


Also, it is shameful that our once proud (and significantly less wealthy) city had locally owned WKY broadcasting from the Skirvin (occupying two floors there) and KWTV with it's “world's tallest man-made structure” tower – now only has a small handful of local radio stations (Perry and Taylor owned...the big ones are Citadel and Clear Channel owned, Nevada and Texas corporations) and amongst the major TV stations just Channel 9. The others have been bought off by wealthy investment firms in Ft Worth or by media conglomerates with no interest in our city whatsoever, other than making a buck.

With all this money we have set to come in, why not use it to buy back some of our stations? We need to be telling OUR stories, not these myopic “economies of scale” hoodlums, most of which are about to go bankrupt and trying to squeeze every penny out of every advertiser...thus pricing most local OKC businesses out of ever mentioning their goods and services, it's always some fancy national entity or a tax payer funded Ad Council spot! Whether it be municipally-owned radio (as Dallas has done so well with WRR) or local groups subsidized by MAPS funds, we need to take our media back.

So you're suggesting government ownership of the media? Wowzers. That'll definitely score you points with conservatives! The real answer to the lack of local radio is already present in your post -- or at least a clue is. As you observed, Clear Channel, Citadel, etc. are either currently in bankruptcy or at least about to be there. I seem to recall that some of Clear Channel's creditors may have filed an involuntary proceeding or something of that nature, which means that they know that they're not getting paid and they're wanting to liquidate or reorganize Clear Channel in such a way that they'll at least get something before it's completely belly up.

Market forces are the solution here. If local radio can be successful then local buyers will emerge for these stations as the big companies divest them (which will happen since we're not a huge media market for them) and we'll either get some sort of local ownership.

Now, as to whether we get local programming or nationally syndicated garbage, that's up to the people. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc., would probably outperform any local show in the same time slot (God only knows why), but it is what it is. NPR ain't bad though... and they do actually maintain local news bureaus. But forget about in depth coverage on anything.


Michael Carrier, President of the CVB told me one of the reasons for building the new Center, was that we need “..higher ceilings for the types of events some people are putting on these days.” Hello? How about using your vast resources and knowledge to court conferences that don't use big displays!

We're obviously already able to attract these, but I imagine the need for higher ceilings is due to technology, stages, etc., which just about everyone uses these days. So really, without standard facilities, you're really fighting for scraps and that ain't where the Chamber wants us to be and I tend to agree with the Chamber.


With this Convention Center, we are talking about the same amount of money it will cost to build the new jail. Might be good to just gift those funds to the County. That would prevent a dreaded 9.375% sales tax (shopping deterrent of epic proportions) or big new property tax. If they try and sign a contract with Benham or some other fancy outfit, fine let them. What will they do, sue the City for canceling? There is a nice cap on what you can sue for. Take the money and go have an elegant dinner party with it at Red Prime while the good people of Oklahoma City have a bigger party, doing more important things...

I could school you in how inept an observation this is... OKC basically gifting money to Edmond and Norman residents, but if you're too ignorant to understand what you're suggesting, I'll just let you continue to embarrass yourself. That's just completely absurd.


These are the kind of actions we can take, amongst many others I have planned, that would put us on the map. I will discuss other things later if anyone is interested.

So your bid to get the majority of the people to vote for you is couched in reversing something that 54 percent of the public just a few weeks ago asked for?

Don't quit your day job.

Wow, Betts, Hunt4mayor rambled on like a madman. How did we let him on the ballot? Him being willing to discuss things goes a long way.

I'm not sure which part of your statement is tongue in cheek, but if it wasn't the second, I'm hoping you're one of the public servants who lives outside the city limits. It's scary to think anyone will vote for him. You might do a search on this forum and look for all the Steve Hunt and Blazerfan posts if you were impressed with him being willing to discuss things.

I laughed till I cried. It had been a dreary and somewhat somber day until I logged back in. No more. Thanks Hunt. :yourock:

Betts, I would like to see Mr. Hunt give Mr. Cornett a run for his money. Let him know he is not invincible. I have told you many times I live around 104th and Western south and I vote. Mr. Cornett might not be in the graces of the powers that be after making promises no one wants to keep concerning public safety. After all he is only 1 vote of 9. The story we are being told is the council can't risk firing cops and firemen, so we are looking at up to 9% pay cuts. I promise I haven't worked for 25 years to have my salary hacked by 9% and my insurance go up by 20%. Mr. Cornett sold maps to the people knowing we were in financial hard times. Treat me bad and I will work hard to defeat you.

Mike, if all of us voted based on our own self-interest, this world would be a sorry place. There are plenty of people who no longer have jobs, and there are plenty taking pay cuts. I refuse to vote for chaos and ignorance. Oklahoma City means too much to me to risk disaster and nationwide embarrassment, which is what Steve Hunt's election would mean. Again, read his posts and his blog and tell me you would feel proud about your vote.

seems like a good thread for the politics forum...yawn

...would feel proud about your vote.

Well this is problem area because there is no way I can vote for Cornett again (voted for him the 1st two times). Since his last landslide win, he let it go to his head and since then, has become just another tax-n-spend politician. I respected him when he was a Councilman (he voted against the Bass Pro deal and against the City's selling of the naming rights to the Arena) and thought he did a decent job as Mayor the 1st time around. He came way down in my book when shortly after his landslide win, he decided he wanted to be a U.S. Representative. When he made that decision, he should have resigned as Mayor (as Humphreys did). Through the Ford and MAPS 3 campaigns, Mr. Cornett has been less than truthful and he simply isn't someone that can be trusted IMO.

"Less than truthful" or "crazy loon"? What a choice!

Then I would abstain, Larry.

Claims that Mayor Cornett hid or was untruthful about the City's budget/financial issues are completely false and any claims to the contrary are laughable. If you alive, watch news, read the news paper, pending budget cuts, etc; were common knowledge, unless had your head in the sand or live in a cave.