Not really. A couple of the models are similar in style to Heritage or Mesta homes. Most are not. I don't see anything that looks like Gatewood. Are you familiar with Gatewood, or just throwing it out there because it's an old neighborhood you've heard of?

Either way, Heritage and Mesta aren't very "urban" either, by other cities' standards. If that's what you were hoping for, I'm sure you're disappointed. From the Wheeler group's perspective, I'm sure theyre balancing modern urbanism with what's marketable to people currently living in suburban homes in Belle Isle or Edmond.

Neither approach is wrong, just different. But wishing this was more urban is definitely not being "unnecessarily critical."

I was speaking more to lot spacing and the fact that they do look similar to some of the houses in all the neighborhoods I listed. I would consider all of them somewhat urban neighborhoods with small lot spacing similar to others that are near high density urban areas in other cities. Anyone paying attention on this should’ve seen that part of the development has been billed to be similar to what they built at Carleton Landing, so the fact that part of it looks like that shouldnt be the earth shattering surprise that some here are making it out to be.

And yes Sherlock, I am familiar with Gatewood. I’ve lived in Mesta Park for 5 years, looked for houses in Gatewood and spend a lot of time over there.

I pay HOA fees in my neighborhood. No club house and no pool. There is a massive block long brick wall that we have insurance coverage on (liability in case someone runs into it), plus pay for landscape upkeep at the entrances.

You live in Camden Place?

I was speaking more to lot spacing and the fact that they do look similar to some of the houses in all the neighborhoods I listed. I would consider all of them somewhat urban neighborhoods with small lot spacing similar to others that are near high density urban areas in other cities. Anyone paying attention on this should’ve seen that part of the development has been billed to be similar to what they built at Carleton Landing, so the fact that part of it looks like that shouldnt be the earth shattering surprise that some here are making it out to be.

And yes Sherlock, I am familiar with Gatewood. I’ve lived in Mesta Park for 5 years, looked for houses in Gatewood and spend a lot of time over there.

Well, you came out pretty harshly critical of somebody making a fair point, and your point about Gatewood still doesn't make sense, so...

Well, you came out pretty harshly critical of somebody making a fair point, and your point about Gatewood still doesn't make sense, so...

Seeing has how I said I was speaking more to lot spacing which is very similar in parts of all the neighborhoods i mentioned and that there is very similar architecture in parts of all three neighborhoods, I’m not sure what you’re getting at... I never said that the houses in Wheeler look like every single house in Heritage, Mesta, and Gatewood.

You live in Camden Place?

Nope, Kingsridge in Yukon.

...Either way, Heritage and Mesta aren't very "urban" either, by other cities' standards. If that's what you were hoping for, I'm sure you're disappointed. From the Wheeler group's perspective, I'm sure theyre balancing modern urbanism with what's marketable to people currently living in suburban homes in Belle Isle or Edmond.

Neither approach is wrong, just different. But wishing this was more urban is definitely not being "unnecessarily critical."

Again, not trying to offend, but this demonstrates an incomplete understanding of what is taking place right now, and in the future. The finished development will absolutely have the same type of density shown in the renderings. The portion breaking ground is a small part of the overall development and is at the outer edge. As development approaches the center - nearer the river - with other phases it will be more dense, including multi family, office, retail. This is the area largely shown in the renderings above.

This isn’t - as you seem to be suggesting - some sort of watered-down Okie-urban-lite, designed for people who don’t *really* want urban; when complete it will be one of the most true-to-form New Urbanist developments in the U.S., and definitely in the central U.S.. In fact the planners from Dover-Kohl - pioneers in the field of New Urbanist city planning - have remarked that this will probably be the most faithfully-executed of any of their master plans to date.

I would really encourage you or anyone else who would like to weigh in to visit the Wheeler website, visit their temporary sales/info office at the Holiday Pop-Ups in Midtown, and also to visit some of the links I provided above which explain New Urbanism far better than I do.

Again, not trying to offend, but this demonstrates an incomplete understanding of what is taking place right now, and in the future. The finished development will absolutely have the same type of density shown in the renderings. The portion breaking ground is a small part of the overall development and is at the outer edge. As development approaches the center - nearer the river - with other phases it will be more dense, including multi family, office, retail. This is the area largely shown in the renderings above.

This isn’t - as you seem to be suggesting - some sort of watered-down Okie-urban-lite, designed for people who don’t *really* want urban; when complete it will be one of the most true-to-form New Urbanist developments in the U.S., and definitely in the central U.S.. In fact the planners from Dover-Kohl - pioneers in the field of New Urbanist city planning - have remarked that this will probably be the most faithfully-executed of any of their master plans to date.

I would really encourage you or anyone else who would like to weigh in to visit the Wheeler website, visit their temporary sales/info office at the Holiday Pop-Ups in Midtown, and also to visit some of the links I provided above which explain New Urbanism far better than I do.

First...I get it. I've been to Seaside, Carlton Landing and have read a couple of manifestos on New Urbanism. (I linked upthread or somewhere on the site one paper that was written and distributed to help explain Carlton Landing.) What seems to not fit with all that, and part of what I think people are alluding to on density...Carlton Landing is a city by a lake all by itself. So is Seaside, (sort of). Thus, one would expect those to have all the transects from town center density through less dense rural.

Wheeler isn't. It's in the middle of an existing city close to the urban center of that existing city. It's somewhat hard to explain in New Urbanist principles why it too would have a cross section of transects like a new town springing up apart from other development. It seems to be striving to be a New Urbanist neighborhood within the city, without much regard to where it is in the existing city itself. I'm not sure that's good or bad. It just is what it is.

Thus, one would expect those to have all the transects from town center density through less dense rural.

Wheeler isn't. It's in the middle of an existing city close to the urban center of that existing city. It's somewhat hard to explain in New Urbanist principles why it too would have a cross section of transects like a new town springing up apart from other development. It seems to be striving to be a New Urbanist neighborhood within the city, without much regard to where it is in the existing city itself. I'm not sure that's good or bad. It just is what it is.

I see your point now and it actually makes a lot of sense.

Urbanized - I’m very curious to hear your thoughts on this.

^^^^^^^
Simple: it's not ALL of the transects. It's not even close.

Even the most "suburban" portions of development will still be among the most dense housing in the city, the state, even the region. As cafeboeuf points out, the least-dense parts of Wheeler will still as dense or more likely significantly MORE dense than OKC's close-in historic neighborhoods.

As the neighborhood matures it will resemble traditional neighborhoods clustered around a commercial center, or even a village that has been swallowed up by a larger city. Think Boston's North End, or Back Bay, Beacon Hill. Think Georgetown in D.C..

Even in OKC there are examples - though not perfect thanks to when they developed or thanks to poorly-considered changes made since inception - of more walkable (always historic) neighborhoods of more closely-clustered homes, which give way to more dense multi family, which in turn give way to commercial. The best probably being Classen-Ten-Penn/Gatewood giving way to Plaza. There once was a Piggly Wiggly, a TG&Y AND an Anthony's, in addition of course to a theater. All were eminently walkable from the surrounding dense neighborhoods.

Sure, some people drove from elsewhere - the car was already a massive influence when this neighborhood developed - but a huge part of the commercial district's business came from nearby homes, with many people walking there. If they needed something they couldn't get in the district, pre-WW2 they would walk a few blocks, catch the streetcar and ride downtown.

Places like Capitol Hill and NW 23rd/Paseo/Jefferson Park still have remnants of this lifestyle.

The point of a well-considered New Urbanist community isn't to build a continuous multistory repetitive street wall that eventually repeats all of the way to the CBD. The point in a develop like this one is to create a node of activity; a self-contained area that offers multiple living options but ALL of them walkable to goods, services, entertainment and employment options, which in turn connect to the larger community. This would hopefully then be replicated by other developments in the city, also including some walkable suburban retrofits.

Optimally in the future all of this could be connected via a robust transportation network. Yes, we are of course talking about something that will take decades if not generations, but recall that the destruction of unchecked sprawl also happened over the course of multiple generations. It's going to take a while for our city to knit itself back together, but this is a start.

Double post.

^^:Smiley051

^^^^^^^
Simple: it's not ALL of the transects. It's not even close.

Even the most "suburban" portions of development will still be among the most dense housing in the city, the state, even the region. As cafeboeuf points out, the least-dense parts of Wheeler will still as dense or more likely significantly MORE dense than OKC's close-in historic neighborhoods.

As the neighborhood matures it will resemble traditional neighborhoods clustered around a commercial center, or even a village that has been swallowed up by a larger city. Think Boston's North End, or Back Bay, Beacon Hill. Think Georgetown in D.C..

Even in OKC there are examples - though not perfect thanks to when they developed or thanks to poorly-considered changes made since inception - of more walkable (always historic) neighborhoods of more closely-clustered homes, which give way to more dense multi family, which in turn give way to commercial. The best probably being Classen-Ten-Penn/Gatewood giving way to Plaza. There once was a Piggly Wiggly, a TG&Y AND an Anthony's, in addition of course to a theater. All were eminently walkable from the surrounding dense neighborhoods.

Sure, some people drove from elsewhere - the car was already a massive influence when this neighborhood developed - but a huge part of the commercial district's business came from nearby homes, with many people walking there. If they needed something they couldn't get in the district, pre-WW2 they would walk a few blocks, catch the streetcar and ride downtown.

Places like Capitol Hill and NW 23rd/Paseo/Jefferson Park still have remnants of this lifestyle.

The point of a well-considered New Urbanist community isn't to build a continuous multistory repetitive street wall that eventually repeats all of the way to the CBD. The point in a develop like this one is to create a node of activity; a self-contained area that offers multiple living options but ALL of them walkable to goods, services, entertainment and employment options, which in turn connect to the larger community. This would hopefully then be replicated by other developments in the city, also including some walkable suburban retrofits.

Optimally in the future all of this could be connected via a robust transportation network. Yes, we are of course talking about something that will take decades if not generations, but recall that the destruction of unchecked sprawl also happened over the course of multiple generations. It's going to take a while for our city to knit itself back together, but this is a start.

Thanks for the reply. I learn so much from your posts and really appreciate them.

^^:Smiley051

Double!

Also, if you look at this in context, the edges on the southwest side of Wheeler, with the single-family dwellings, are context sensitive to the adjacent existing neighborhoods. It wouldn't be fair to them to suddenly have something like the density of a T6, T5, or even a T4 right next to them. It makes sense to build up density and height in an orderly, transect-based manner. The transect map, as planned, is below. It shows how this will be context sensitive across the potential development area.

14305

....

The point of a well-considered New Urbanist community isn't to build a continuous multistory repetitive street wall that eventually repeats all of the way to the CBD. The point in a develop like this one is to create a node of activity; a self-contained area that offers multiple living options but ALL of them walkable to goods, services, entertainment and employment options, which in turn connect to the larger community. This would hopefully then be replicated by other developments in the city, also including some walkable suburban retrofits.

Optimally in the future all of this could be connected via a robust transportation network. Yes, we are of course talking about something that will take decades if not generations, but recall that the destruction of unchecked sprawl also happened over the course of multiple generations. It's going to take a while for our city to knit itself back together, but this is a start.

Bingo. This has to be embraced for New Urbanism to have any real effect in the grand scheme.

Bingo. This has to be embraced for New Urbanism to have any real effect in the grand scheme.
Agreed. I think this can/will be the jumping off point for that. It's the reason I'm so enthusiastic about this particular development, in fact. I think it will be a reset point for consumer tastes in OKC and will be the spark which allows us to remake this city as a healthier, more efficient place, and one that offers a wide variety of living options rather than just a very few. We might not live to see the finished product, but then again, cities are living organisms that are never "finished," anyway.

Double!

Also, if you look at this in context, the edges on the southwest side of Wheeler, with the single-family dwellings, are context sensitive to the adjacent existing neighborhoods. It wouldn't be fair to them to suddenly have something like the density of a T6, T5, or even a T4 right next to them. It makes sense to build up density and height in an orderly, transect-based manner. The transect map, as planned, is below. It shows how this will be context sensitive across the potential development area.

14305

This is an EXCELLENT point. The layers of thought that went into the planning of this development are really impressive.

Thanks for the reply. I learn so much from your posts and really appreciate them.

Thanks Nick! Happy to help wherever I can.

What are the chances Strawberry Fields develops this way vs. haphazard development? Seems to me we need them to work together... as Urbanized says, knitted together. What can we do RIGHT NOW to help require it? Don't want to be complaining later because we didn't act NOW.

Kirk Humphreys on TV equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Yikes! This cant be good for business.

http://kfor.com/2017/12/10/flash-point-team-discusses-special-session-sen-al-franken-resigning-and-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/

Kirk Humphreys on TV equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Yikes! This cant be good for business.

http://kfor.com/2017/12/10/flash-point-team-discusses-special-session-sen-al-franken-resigning-and-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/

Humphries should step down from the OU Board of Regents. How are you supposed to help lead a university when you spew bigotry towards LGBTQ faculty, students, and staff? I mean, he literally thinks two adults in a consensual, committed relationship is the same as molesting children.

Maybe my best professor during my time at OU (which was a long time since I earned three degrees there), was a gay professor. He was an incredibly gifted, thoughtful, and committed educator and scholar. Humphries would prevent incredible people like him from even applying to OU. It's abhorent and unacceptable, but as much as anything, it hurts the ability of the university to attract and retain faculty, students, and staff. A higher percentage of LGBTQ people are in academia specifically because it seems to be a more inclusive and accepting space than many other employment opportunities. If not for moral reasons, he should step down because he's now bad for OU's business and brand.

Just another black eye for Oklahoma education.

I'm shocked by his comments! Yikes.

I'm sure this will be moved to another forum, but I totally agree. Kirk should not be a regent if he thinks a portion of the population (in general and at OU) is "wrong". There's no place for that kind of intolerance.

Does anyone know how I can voice my disapproval to the regents?

I'm sure this will be moved to another forum, but I totally agree. Kirk should not be a regent if he thinks a portion of the population (in general and at OU) is "wrong". There's no place for that kind of intolerance.

Does anyone know how I can voice my disapproval to the regents?

I don’t think intolerance means what some of you think it means

I don’t think intolerance means what some of you think it means

Well thank God you're here to enlighten us with your in-depth responses.

I don’t think intolerance means what some of you think it means

This isn't just about tolerance. It's about bigotry. The logical legal extention of Humphries comments is that he believes that members of OU's LGBTQ community are commiting a crime and should be jailed by engaging in consensual adult relationships akin to molestation.

Bigotry does not fall within the realm of deserving "tolerance" because it is an affront to the very concept. He is welcome to hold these beliefs and not act on them, but he just should not be in a public position of leadership.

That is not a logical extention of his comments at all

This isn't just about tolerance. It's about bigotry. The logical legal extention of Humphries comments is that he believes that members of OU's LGBTQ community are commiting a crime and should be jailed by engaging in consensual adult relationships akin to molestation.

Bigotry does not fall within the realm of deserving "tolerance" because it is an affront to the very concept. He is welcome to hold these beliefs and not act on them, but he just should not be in a public position of leadership.

At least OU has student leaders to compensate for the idiots on the Board of Regents.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JD__Baker/status/940035326214471681

That is not a logical extention of his comments at all

I saw him equating the legal act of being homosexual to the illegal and horrific act of pedophilia, on TV. There was no logical extension because thats what he clearly said. Thats probably not someone who should be representing a public state university, which has many LGBT professors, employees, students, and supporters. Call me intolerant if I dont want that guy representing OU and tax payers money.

Same way most people were intolerant of the dumb OU frat kids using racial slurs on camera. Curious if Boren will address this soon.

That is not a logical extention of his comments at all

I don’t mind the discussion (even if I don’t see much wiggle room on issues of bigotry/injustice), but at least do us the courtesy of providing a rationale or evidence for your opinions.

I don't know if it's a black eye for Oklahoma education, since it's just one person, and it isn't being tolerated, but the comments were very shocking and disappointing to me personally, as I've always respected Humphreys.

Boren has already addressed it, as have other members of the OU leadership, and I have a feeling Kirk will be out after tomorrows (I believe) regents meeting.

I've sent my comments to regentspurcell@ou.edu, as well as dboren@ou.edu. You may call the regents (which I also did) at 405-325-4122. I've met Mr. Humphreys a couple of times. He's generally nice -- if incredibly and weirdly smug. He's also a fanatic and his comments are dangerous for anyone in the position he's in. He should resign in the interest of the university. He can take his dog and pony show to Oral Roberts or Bob Jones University; he has no business serving in a leadership capacity of a major public university like OU.

I've sent my comments to regentspurcell@ou.edu, as well as dboren@ou.edu. You may call the regents (which I also did) at 405-325-4122. I've met Mr. Humphreys a couple of times. He's generally nice -- if incredibly and weirdly smug. He's also a fanatic and his comments are dangerous for anyone in the position he's in. He should resign in the interest of the university. He can take his dog and pony show to Oral Roberts or Bob Jones University; he has no business serving in a leadership capacity of a major public university like OU.

Is it okay to have a religious man serve a university? It seems your answer is no. Here is Kirk's response from the article for the record.

"I regret that my comments on Flash Point regarding homosexuality were not clear and led some people to believe that I was equating homosexuality with pedophilia. That was not my intention or desire. I apologize for my lack of clarity and realize this has resulted in a strong reaction by some and has hurt people’s feelings."

For the record - since this is the Wheeler thread and not a politics/religion/television thread - Wheeler released a statement differentiating and distancing themselves from Kirk’s personal beliefs and the comments in question, and Blair personally has repudiated the comments and is working with members of the LGBTQ community to ensure that the development explores every opportunity for inclusivity:

http://newsok.com/former-okc-mayor-apologizes-for-controversial-comments/article/5575592


Humphreys' son, Blair, is the managing director and developer of the Wheeler District, a new development southwest of Oklahoma City anchored by a Ferris wheel near the Oklahoma River.

Stevenson said Blair Humphreys reached out to him on Monday following his father's comments.

"He rebuked his father's statement in the email he sent to me and we are going to be meeting this week," Stevenson said.

In a statement provided to The Oklahoman, Blair Humphreys said his father's comments did not reflect the values of the Wheeler District, which just broke ground on the first phase of homes that will make up much of the development.

"We sincerely apologize for the hurtful and unfair comments that have been associated with our work at the Wheeler District,” the statement read. "I and the Wheeler District team believe firmly in creating a diverse and inclusive community. We have welcomed all voices in planning an urban neighborhood where everyone feels safe and appreciated. As such, we have reached out to members of the LGBTQ community to see how we can continue to make Wheeler an even more welcoming place for people of all backgrounds."

Also for the record, the team at Wheeler includes some of the most inclusive, kind and thoughtful people I know.

Is it okay to have a religious man serve a university? It seems your answer is no. Here is Kirk's response from the article for the record.

"I regret that my comments on Flash Point regarding homosexuality were not clear and led some people to believe that I was equating homosexuality with pedophilia. That was not my intention or desire. I apologize for my lack of clarity and realize this has resulted in a strong reaction by some and has hurt people’s feelings."

It's not okay to have an outspoken bigot in that role, wrapped in whatever cloth.

The good news is, not only is he a homophobe, he also believes the reason OKCPS struggles is because the "best gene pool" moved to Edmond.

This is what he said back in 2015:
http://archives.bluenationreview.com/university-oklahoma-regent-thinks-city-superior-gene-pool/

That has nothing to do with being a Christian and just means you are racist.

For the record - since this is the Wheeler thread and not a politics/religion/television thread - Wheeler released a statement differentiating and distancing themselves from Kirk’s personal beliefs and the comments in question, and Blair personally has repudiated the comments and is working with members of the LGBTQ community to ensure that the development explores every opportunity for inclusivity:

http://newsok.com/former-okc-mayor-apologizes-for-controversial-comments/article/5575592



Also for the record, the team at Wheeler includes some of the most inclusive, kind and thoughtful people I know.

Kirk Humphreys is CEO (and founder) of the parent company, FWIW. http://humphreysco.com/who-we-are

Yeah, regardless of how far Blair tries to distance himself from his father's comments, Kirk is is going to be making a lot of money off of this project, so it's important that everyone knows his role in it.

It makes sense that they want to include a charter school in this development though, to keep the good gene pool separate from the bad one in Westwood nearby.

Is it okay to have a religious man serve a university? strong reaction by some and has hurt people’s feelings."

It is not OK to marginalize an entire segment of the population you serve. While he apologized for equating homosexuality with pedophilia, he still believes homosexuality is "wrong". If he can't serve the entire student body, faculty and staff of OU then he should resign.

Yeah, regardless of how far Blair tries to distance himself from his father's comments, Kirk is is going to be making a lot of money off of this project, so it's important that everyone knows his role in it.

It makes sense that they want to include a charter school in this development though, to keep the good gene pool separate from the bad one in Westwood nearby.

The Charter school will have attendance boundaries just like John Rex, and will thereby include that neighborhood.

Why don't they just attend the school that is less than a mile away...

What is the point of the charter, other than to ensure that the residents don't have to send their children to OKCPS as a sales tactic?

Why don't they just attend the school that is less than a mile away...

What is the point of the charter, other than to ensure that the residents don't have to send their children to OKCPS as a sales tactic?

Because it will add enough children over time that a new school is needed... and it will also be a bilingual immersion program, which OKCPS does not currently have.

It is not OK to marginalize an entire segment of the population you serve. While he apologized for equating homosexuality with pedophilia, he still believes homosexuality is "wrong". If he can't serve the entire student body, faculty and staff of OU then he should resign.

For the sake of argument, what if he believed that underage drinking was "wrong"? Or that casual sex was "wrong"? That would certainly put his beliefs at odds with the behavior of many OU students. But does it mean he cannot serve effectively as a regent?

For the sake of argument, what if he believed that underage drinking was "wrong"? Or that casual sex was "wrong"? That would certainly put his beliefs at odds with the behavior of many OU students. But does it mean he cannot serve effectively as a regent?

you must think being gay is a choice?? Thinking drinking is wrong is not the same as thinking being gay is wrong... By your logic it'd be ok to have him on the board if he thought being black was wrong, or having red hair. geez man..

Would he discriminate in the hiring process of a new president? Would his religious beliefs trump the hiring of a qualified individual for the post? How can he be an effective regent if he can not take a secular view of a secular job? He is free to have his opinions but he has no "right" to be a regent at a public university.

Would he discriminate in the hiring process of a new president? Would his religious beliefs trump the hiring of a qualified individual for the post? How can he be an effective regent if he can not take a secular view of a secular job? He is free to have his opinions but he has no "right" to be a regent at a public university.

This kind of proclamation by an official now opens the door for a non-selected candidate who might be gay to sue the university for discrimination in the hiring process. It is just unnecessary.

On the business side, discrimination in housing might be either a legal or just a PR problem.

Since we are now in the Trumpian era where discrimination is swept under the rug under the anti "political correctness" groundswell, this may wind up being a net positive...who knows. There is lots of political capital right now for division and grandiose statements of judgement (towards certain things).

It is not OK to marginalize an entire segment of the population you serve. While he apologized for equating homosexuality with pedophilia, he still believes homosexuality is "wrong". If he can't serve the entire student body, faculty and staff of OU then he should resign.

Then you would agree that that say a devote Muslim is unfit to serve the public correct? The problem is that by pushing out religious people from public life you will see them only serve and associate with like minded people. This leads to group think and tribalism which leads to extremism. It is foolish of you think otherwise.

I would agree that any person who can not serve the public in a public position due to philosophical differences is unfit to serve. Whether it is a Muslim cab driver refusing a fare because the customer has a six pack of beer with them or a Christian Court Clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple or a Jewish cafeteria worker in a public school refusing to serve a ham sandwich.

Why don't they just attend the school that is less than a mile away...

What is the point of the charter, other than to ensure that the residents don't have to send their children to OKCPS as a sales tactic?

The biggest problem for urban school districts is that people with means abandon them. If people with means would quit moving out of OKCPS and instead dedicate themselves to the the communities and schools, they would be fine. Unfortunately, many people see the school district as the problem instead of themselves. This results in schools where there is incredibly high SES and racial segregation and concentrating poverty in any school is problematic. These charters seem to be the only way a lot of people with means will consider OKCPS, unfortunately. It's not the ideal solution, but it's probably better than the status quo as long as the charters are run in line with other public schools and do not move to for-profit models. It's a difficult dilemma to solve.

Then you would agree that that say a devote Muslim is unfit to serve the public correct? The problem is that by pushing out religious people from public life you will see them only serve and associate with like minded people. This leads to group think and tribalism which leads to extremism. You are foolish of you think otherwise.

If that Muslim believed in throwing gay people off buildings then yes. There is a difference between being religious and being a bigot.

The biggest problem for urban school districts is that people with means abandon them. If people with means would quit moving out of OKCPS and instead dedicate themselves to the the communities and schools, they would be fine. Unfortunately, many people see the school district as the problem instead of themselves. This results in schools where there is incredibly high SES and racial segregation and concentrating poverty in any school is problematic. These charters seem to be the only way a lot of people with means will consider OKCPS, unfortunately. It's not the ideal solution, but it's probably better than the status quo as long as the charters are run in line with other public schools and do not move to for-profit models. It's a difficult dilemma to solve.

Ok.

Then you would agree that that say a devote Muslim is unfit to serve the public correct? The problem is that by pushing out religious people from public life you will see them only serve and associate with like minded people. This leads to group think and tribalism which leads to extremism. It is foolish of you think otherwise.

Where did anyone say what you said? It's simple: bigotry is the problem, not religion. If you hold discriminatory views towards a group of people then you are unfit to be a public servant. People drinking is a social problem, not a group that faces discrimination. Many Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc. people can serve a public institution without espousing discriminatory beliefs, especially on live TV. This really is a super low bar we're setting and Humphreys does not meet it.

Ok.

Go on...

I would agree that any person who can not serve the public in a public position due to philosophical differences is unfit to serve. Whether it is a Muslim cab driver refusing a fare because the customer has a six pack of beer with them or a Christian Court Clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple or a Jewish cafeteria worker in a public school refusing to serve a ham sandwich.

This approach will lead to segeration by religion and job type. I am for diversity even if I do not agree with other people's religious or philosophical opinions.

This approach will lead to segeration by religion and job type. I am for diversity even if I do not agree with other people's religious or philosophical opinions.

Again, this is not about disagreeing with people. It's about bigotry, especially by people who hold public office or are in charge of public institutions. There are certainly lots of people with discriminatory beliefs who also realize that bringing those beliefs into public spaces or their jobs would be inappropriate. Some people may even believe in discrimination and still do their jobs equitably (depending on their job responsiblities, probably). Humphreys not only holds discriminatory beliefs, but he also decided to share them on a very visible public forum. If he had wrestled with these ideas privately then that's one thing, but the way he talks clearly suggests that his bigotry runs very deep. You could tell he resented LGBTQ people gaining more equal rights in recent years and he was indignant that others didn't understand right from wrong like him. More than anything, he is damaging the reputation of an institution that needs to attract talented LGBTQ faculty, staff, and students, and so he is now a detriment to the university. People's beliefs are complex, but most people have at least some humility about their beliefs and thoughtfulness about how they express themselves. For example, I am in education. If I was hiring someone, I don't care about their personal beliefs, but I might ask them in an interview, "Our LGBTQ students face bullying in our school. Will you support and advocate for them so they can have academic success?" If they cannot answer affirmatively 'yes' then it means their personal beliefs are more important than their commitment to students and their education. I wouldn't hire them not because of their beliefs, but because they would be an ineffective educator for some of our students. Humphreys has clearly crossed a lot of lines and that's why he should resign.

Where did anyone say what you said? It's simple: bigotry is the problem, not religion.


http://kfor.com/2017/12/10/flash-point-team-discusses-special-session-sen-al-franken-resigning-and-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/

Second paragraph of Kirk's comments

Then you would agree that that say a devote Muslim is unfit to serve the public correct?

This isn't about religion. It is about bigotry. As Ross MacLochness said, being born gay is no different than being born black. I don't want to go back to the days of segregation any more than I want to see people demonize LGBTQs.

Again, this is not about disagreeing with people. It's about bigotry, especially by people who hold public office or are in charge of public institutions. There are certainly lots of people with discriminatory beliefs who also realize that bringing those beliefs into public spaces or their jobs would be inappropriate. Some people may even believe in discrimination and still do their jobs equitably (depending on their job responsiblities, probably). Humphreys not only holds discriminatory beliefs, but he also decided to share them on a very visible public forum. If he had wrestled with these ideas privately then that's one thing, but the way he talks clearly suggests that his bigotry runs very deep. You could tell he resented LGBTQ people gaining more equal rights in recent years and he was indignant that others didn't understand right from wrong like him. More than anything, he is damaging the reputation of an institution that needs to attract talented LGBTQ faculty, staff, and students, and so he is now a detriment to the university. People's beliefs are complex, but most people have at least some humility about their beliefs and thoughtfulness about how they express themselves. For example, I am in education. If I was hiring someone, I don't care about their personal beliefs, but I might ask them in an interview, "Our LGBTQ students face bullying in our school. Will you support and advocate for them so they can have academic success?" If they cannot answer affirmatively 'yes' then it means their personal beliefs are more important than their commitment to students and their education. I wouldn't hire them not because of their beliefs, but because they would be an ineffective educator for some of our students. Humphreys has clearly crossed a lot of lines and that's why he should resign.

Well put, Dan.

http://kfor.com/2017/12/10/flash-point-team-discusses-special-session-sen-al-franken-resigning-and-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/

Second paragraph of Kirk's comments

Sorry for the confusion. I'm saying, where did anyone in this thread say we should push religious people (which is like 95% of the population) out of public life? No one said that. You are using an anti-religion strawman to make your argument. That was my point.

This isn't about religion. It is about bigotry. As Ross MacLochness said, being born gay is no different than being born black. I don't want to go back to the days of segregation any more than I want to see people demonize LGBTQs.

A big problem is that many evangelicals still believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice and with a little prayer and "therapy" the person can become heterosexual. Never mind the fact that conversion therapy causes far-reaching mental problems and even suicide. Conversion therapy and the idea that sexual orientation is a choice is debunked by science and nearly all licensed psychologists. OU is a secular public university and therefore proven science should trump religion.

That was the most unapologetic Apologies I have ever seen. mind you I am not surprised by his statements as he was always so difficult when Mayor about Anything LGBT.