No, Mike. I said that if you didn't have to answer 911 calls, you'd have more than enough personnel to fight fires in OKC.

And no, I think the city is responsible for all of the city. But, I think the downtown is responsible for making this a far better city than it was 20 years ago. MAPS and Arena MAPS have substantially increased the amount of money the city has in its coffers to pay for all sorts of things, including your salary. It may not be as good as you'd like it to be, but were it not for them, this economic downturn might have resulted in far worse economic problems for the city, which would have affected all city employees.

I don't know. Can we trust that Shadid's turnaround is whole hearted? If it isn't, is he going to be less supportive of MAPS than Swinton, who likes everything but the "trolley" (I don't like the trolleys either).

Shadid certainly seems to be a little farther to the left politically. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. It's nice to have some balance on the council and to have some new ideas. I certainly like walking, gardens and sustainability. If he promotes those, I don't see that as a bad thing. If he's in favor of mass transit, well, I am too. I want the streetcar AND a better bus system. I'm thinking of running for COTPA myself (there was supposed to be a winky smiley there, but I can't get it to work).

I think I'm about ready to get on the Shadid bandwagon.

Mike, go away already. Shoo fly, shoo. Whine about public safety funding in another thread, please.

And the smearing of Shadid by the Oklahoman continues. This is a choice bit from today's lead editorial:


The one council race not decided Tuesday was in Ward 2, where Charlie Swinton and Ed Shadid were top vote-getters in a six-person race. Shadid has made it a point to bash city government; we'll see how that message resonates in the runoff April 5.

What a load of crap.

Again, why are they smearing him? Something smells.

But if we keep OKC in the dumps, there is crime, and then there is demand for more police jobs. If OKC's makes huge environmental improvements which happens to foster a safer, more subdued environment, that means we need less police officers. Survival instincts are just kicking in... THEN how will people without college degrees make more money than people with??

Most cops in OKC have college degrees. You're off base on this.

Spartan, LMS!

Betts, when does private industry and capitalism take over and create all this downtown?

What you are missing is having your car stolen, your home burglarized, the house on the corner tagged by gangs, crackheads knocking on your door at ten pm to hit you up for money to buy a rock.

That is not going to be improved by the opening of the Whole Foods, or a glamorous OKC bump shot on ESPN, or any of the other holy grails of OKC Talk.

So you think that having ways of generating new taxes or increasing our tax base doesn't improve things? Those things do that as well as making it less likely that we will lose local companies to competing cites and thus lowering our economy.

Spartan, LMS!

Betts, when does private industry and capitalism take over and create all this downtown?

I don't know, I would personally be 100% for privatizing the police force and fire department. I think capitalism should take care of public safety... time to stop free loading on the tax payers and then constantly whining that it's not enough.

Then I think we need to put up toll gates on every single road that comes into the city, whether it be a neighborhood road meandering between OKC and Moore city limits, or I-35, or on Edmond Rd. Hell, let's put up toll gates all around downtown, too. Then privatize the toll gates like they have in Texas. It's time that roads start actually paying for their maintenance and all of us car drivers stop free loading off of the government subsidies for auto transit...

LOL

Oh, and by the way mikemarsh, do you have a college degree? Furthermore, if you're head weren't so far up your ass, you'd see that private development IS occurring at a rapid pace all throughout downtown. I assure the dollar figure for private development greatly exceeds anything in Westmoore (which you called "Westlawn") or anywhere else in the city, hell, maybe even the entire rest of the city. In case you weren't aware, Devon is building a $750M skyscraper downtown. In Deep Deuce there are multiple multi-million-dollar housing projects underway. Multi-million-dollar hotels are being built. In Mid-town there are more deals underway for housing and restaurants. Same goes for Automobile Alley. There are other large office projects around downtown, including SandRidge's $100M proposal that is sheer evil, but still counts as private development. What a moronic comment from you.

And what on earth is LMS? Is that the only response you have to any of my posts in this thread?

Soonerguru, are you sure that most cops have college degrees? You should definitely check up on that. It's a widely accepted idea that cops don't have college degrees, so I don't think I'm the one bearing the burden of proof on that one considering that proving the contrary would actually be shocking.

Perhaps, being very generous, that's what was spent for all the candidates the chamber sent out pamphlets supporting. Dunno. As to whether it was worth it for them financially, I'm not a chamber member and I didn't contribute to this campaign so I don't really have a right to comment. It does seem as if the city stands to benefit financially to an extreme degree if all the MAPS projects are completed, and I would think the chamber would argue they have interest in seeing city councilors elected who have gone on record saying they believe MAPS should be completed as outlined.

Interesting that they didn't support Walter's then, as he was on record (well before this election) for just that.

No, Mike. I said that if you didn't have to answer 911 calls, you'd have more than enough personnel to fight fires in OKC.

And no, I think the city is responsible for all of the city. But, I think the downtown is responsible for making this a far better city than it was 20 years ago. MAPS and Arena MAPS have substantially increased the amount of money the city has in its coffers to pay for all sorts of things, including your salary. It may not be as good as you'd like it to be, but were it not for them, this economic downturn might have resulted in far worse economic problems for the city, which would have affected all city employees.

Sorry if it seems like I am picking on betts...That is the line the City has been using since the first MAPS, that "a rising tide lifts all boats", support this and revenue will improve and we will address staffing issues.

Undeniable fact, revenue did increase (this only reflects the penny dedicated to MAPS, obviously the balance of the City tax accordingly).
MAPS = $56.18/year avg
MAPS for Kids = $74.28M.
MAPS 3 = $100M/year (projected).

Where is the money? Did it go to address the staffing needs (the admitted understaffing needs)? Not according to the City's own budget reports. The City manager stated that overall staffing levels are at the same as in '94 (year after the first MAPS was passed).

But you're forgetting about the downward trajectory we were on before MAPS. We wouldn't have stayed static either way.

Interesting that they didn't support Walter's then, as he was on record (well before this election) for just that.

Ah, but Greenwell came out and essentially said the reason MAPS 3 wasn't supported by his ward was because they didn't understand it. I think the implication was that Walters did a bad job pushing it in his ward. Walters was the sole vote in the council against MAPS and he certainly was anti streetcar. Greenwell was a far safer bet for the Chamber than Walters.

LOL...that means that the Mayor, rest of Council and Chamber did a pretty poor job in "explaining" it then. Come to think of it, aren't we still waiting for all of the details that were to be forthcoming? LOL

Spartan, LMS!

Betts, when does private industry and capitalism take over and create all this downtown?

Ha! I almost wrote exactly what Spartan did a few hours ago and then decided against posting it, because I had another thought. In the 30 years I've lived in Oklahoma City, I have never needed our policemen or firemen. Obviously our policemen have created a safe environment for me without me actually needing them, but follow this line of thinking with me. So I, as a taxpayer all these years, have paid the salaries of people whose services I have not used. Why have I rarely complained about all this money I've spent for something I haven't used and campagined to privatize both these services? Because I am a member of a community, and as a member of this community, I support my fellow residents who have needed their services. I would have saved myself a lot of money if we had a private police force and fire department and I'd had to pay them if they came to my residence when needed. I understand the concept that what is good for my neighbor is good for me because it makes this a better place to live for us as a unit. I may disagree with others regarding prescisely how many of them we need, but not the idea that we need them.

The same should hold true for thinking about city amenities. I argued this during the MAPS campaigns, and I believe it to be true. While I have never used the downtown public library, I'm glad we have it for the people who do use it. I don't really go to the ballet or symphony anymore for some reason, but I want others to be able to do so. I don't know if I'll use a senior center when I'm old enough, but I'm delighted to pay taxes so that our seniors have such places to gather. I will almost assuredly use the new Central park, the streetcar and I used the Ford Center weekly and the Bricktown stadium occasionally. I walk along the canal regularly and eat in Bricktown reasonably often. But even if I didn't, I would be happy, happy, happy to pay taxes so that others in my community could, because what makes our city better makes us all better. A little unselfishness is a good thing. People should try it more often because it feels good.

But you're forgetting about the downward trajectory we were on before MAPS. We wouldn't have stayed static either way.

That's an excellent point and would LOVE to know what sales tax revenues were in say, the ten years prior to MAPS (that way it accounts for up/down years). How much of the revenue growth is directly attributed to the various incarnations of MAPS? In other words, how much would there have been anyway, if MAPS hadn't passed? Presuming that the various bond issues that have passed would still be in place.

This is separate from development $$$ etc (not ignoring the development that has happened downtown and Bricktown), but how much of that development would have happened anyway (just in other parts of the City)?

Sorry if it seems like I am picking on betts...That is the line the City has been using since the first MAPS, that "a rising tide lifts all boats", support this and revenue will improve and we will address staffing issues.

Undeniable fact, revenue did increase (this only reflects the penny dedicated to MAPS, obviously the balance of the City tax accordingly).
MAPS = $56.18/year avg
MAPS for Kids = $74.28M.
MAPS 3 = $100M/year (projected).

Where is the money? Did it go to address the staffing needs (the admitted understaffing needs)? Not according to the City's own budget reports. The City manager stated that overall staffing levels are at the same as in '94 (year after the first MAPS was passed).

This is your bailiwick far more than mine, Larry. I guess we could ask if staff has received raises over that period of time or had any increase in the amount put into pensions. When there's a finite pot of money (even if it is increasing annually), if you increase salaries, it's difficult to increase positions. For example, in my department I have more help than when I was hired, but my salary has increased at a snail's pace. If I calculated inflation, I'm probably making quite a bit less now annually than I was when I was first hired.

That's an excellent point and would LOVE to know what sales tax revenues were in say, the ten years prior to MAPS (that way it accounts for up/down years). How much of the revenue growth is directly attributed to the various incarnations of MAPS? In other words, how much would there have been anyway, if MAPS hadn't passed? Presuming that the various bond issues that have passed would still be in place.

This is separate from development $$$ etc (not ignoring the development that has happened downtown and Bricktown), but how much of that development would have happened anyway (just in other parts of the City)?

All I can tell you is that I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't be living here putting my tax dollars into the city coffers. If not for MAPS, I'd be back in Denver, as would my family. I don't know how many people have moved here or stayed here because of MAPS, but I suspect I'm not alone.

This is your bailiwick far more than mine, Larry. I guess we could ask if staff has received raises over that period of time or had any increase in the amount put into pensions. When there's a finite pot of money (even if it is increasing annually), if you increase salaries, it's difficult to increase positions. For example, in my department I have more help than when I was hired, but my salary has increased at a snail's pace. If I calculated inflation, I'm probably making quite a bit less now annually than I was when I was first hired.

No doubt. But that gets back to the City's promise to address the staffing needs if they got the P.S. support in previous MAPS. The revenue rose, but the City didn't follow thru on the staffing promise and they said this time around, trust us, we will address the staffing needs if you support this MAPS. They said, wait a minute, that's what you said before. Follow through on that promise and then we can talk.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....and a third time? Forget about it!"

But what we don't know, Larry, is whether the union has chosen increases in salaries and benefits over increases in personnel. I might want both, but as I said, in my department I got extra personnel in lieu of the raise. Perhaps the reverse happened there. If they had neither option, then I agree that promises haven't been kept. The city should just do what my department does and promise nothing. Then you're grateful for anything.

Given the failure to keep a promise, if indeed that happened, perhaps PS would have been wiser to complain vociferously and simply stay silent on the subject of MAPS. Campaigning against MAPS and then supporting those who should be unsupportable in this election is what has created negative feelings on the part of the public. The suffering martyr approach might have worked better.

is there a need for more firemen/ police? has there ever been a union that said we have to many jobs we need to get rid of some positions?

That's an excellent point and would LOVE to know what sales tax revenues were in say, the ten years prior to MAPS (that way it accounts for up/down years). How much of the revenue growth is directly attributed to the various incarnations of MAPS? In other words, how much would there have been anyway, if MAPS hadn't passed? Presuming that the various bond issues that have passed would still be in place.

This is separate from development $$$ etc (not ignoring the development that has happened downtown and Bricktown), but how much of that development would have happened anyway (just in other parts of the City)?

It seems rather convenient to leave out the significant developments that have happened downtown since MAPS as that is the most significant part of the equation. And the "what if" exercise is pretty useless anyway and only leads to specious and unfounded speculation.

Association doesn't prove causation, but there is no doubt that Oklahoma City is exponentially more livable than it was for the 20 years before MAPS. Since MAPS, Oklahoma City has improved more in the 12 years I have been back than in the 18 years I spent growing up here. There is no doubt about that.

Basically, it's fair to say that without the improvement of downtown you would have had more of the same in Oklahoma City at best. Sure, some of it may have been significant, but none of it would have helped diversify the city's living options in a way that made it more competitive. And, we still have all the suburban development anyone could ask for in a city this size. MAPS did not change that. But now, we are beginning to have real urban living and entertainment options. Oklahoma City has long felt the sting of its failure to diversify in terms of economy and living options. That is beginning to change and I have a hard time buying that it would have happened anyway without MAPS and the significant improvements and amenities it has brought back to the city core for everyone to enjoy. Even if MAPS only expedited it, then it was worth it. I also have a hard time buying that diversifying the city's living and entertainment options is a bad thing. I believe being competitive matters and is the only way to ensure that we can maintain and improve our basic city services and infrastructure in the long term. If the city itself fails to grow and be competitive, we won'tt be talking about the failure of the city to add jobs or give out raises. We will be talking about how much more we need to cut.

And, there is so much more interest in our inner city and much more investment is happening. Honestly, THAT is what actually makes cities safer. When the people of a community take pride in that community, invest it, protect it, and nurture it, that community can do so much more for it in terms of safety than an army of enforcement could do on its own. We need law and order. We need emergency response services. But if the community is rotting, abandoned, and disposed of by the community with no investment coming in, all the protection in the world will make no difference. In fact, it would then be a waste to protect it as everyone flees to surrounding communities or leaves the region altogether.

You can also argue that gentrification of inner city neighborhoods results in LESS need in those areas for police & fire.

When you revitalize an area you get residents investing in their properties and uniting to make neighborhoods better. Neighbors looking out for each other is always more effective than any police force because it is truly preventative.

And it seems most fires happen in abandoned or badly maintained buildings.

Pete, I'm not sure where you are getting your fire statistics from but you are way off base. Generally abandoned buildings don't have the number one cause of fire in them; human occupancy. Arson fires occur but are not near as frequent as those caused by human error or omission.
From what little I know about crime rates you are correct that when you have more community involvement crime statistics drop.

But what we don't know, Larry, is whether the union has chosen increases in salaries and benefits over increases in personnel. I might want both, but as I said, in my department I got extra personnel in lieu of the raise. Perhaps the reverse happened there. If they had neither option, then I agree that promises haven't been kept. The city should just do what my department does and promise nothing. Then you're grateful for anything.

Given the failure to keep a promise, if indeed that happened, perhaps PS would have been wiser to complain vociferously and simply stay silent on the subject of MAPS. Campaigning against MAPS and then supporting those who should be unsupportable in this election is what has created negative feelings on the part of the public. The suffering martyr approach might have worked better.

Seriously Betts- I know you must be tired from a long day to post this. Don't Know? Yes, we do know. It's been the subject of so many posts in these forums I've lost count. Let me sum it up shortly so we can get back to the topic and start a different thread on this later. No increase in salaries, the only benefit increase was in health care costs which every city employee received but we had to fight the city for, and they have been reducing manpower for the past 10 years, most recently was the last 29 firefighters that they will hopefully rehire and retain for more than the next two years with Federal money.

But what we don't know, Larry, is whether the union has chosen increases in salaries and benefits over increases in personnel. ....

There was an article in the Oklahoman a while back that said that it was actually cheaper for the City to pay overtime (even when they are on vacation) and higher pay for existing than increase the staffing levels to where the City admits they should be. With increased personnel, you have the cost of benefits etc that go along with it. As strange as it may seem, it is not unusual for some companies to get rid of the full time employee and replace them with 2 part time people or even temps. The initial rate of pay may be higher but they get out of the other expenses. When you consider the amount of City employees, those costs can be considerable. Then there is the constant, moving of funds from one pile to another. For whatever reason.

But if the community is rotting, abandoned, and disposed of by the community with no investment coming in, all the protection in the world will make no difference. In fact, it would then be a waste to protect it as everyone flees to surrounding communities or leaves the region altogether.

Not trying to pick on our neighbors, but this is an excellent description of the situation Tulsa finds itself in.

Are you freaking kidding me guru? That's not even close to the situation Tulsa is in. They have an extremely corrupt and inept government that has been in-fighting for decades, but their downtown has just as much development (sans Devon) as ours right now if not more still. They were announcing weekly potential development deals at a time that nothing was happening in OKC for months on end last year. Tulsa is still adding just as many jobs and new residents to their metro as we are...

You need to put down your OKC glasses next time you talk Tulsa. I don't mean to jump on you, but someone needs to police statements like that on here, that's all. I usually agree with you most of the time on things..

Seriously Betts- I know you must be tired from a long day to post this. Don't Know? Yes, we do know. It's been the subject of so many posts in these forums I've lost count. Let me sum it up shortly so we can get back to the topic and start a different thread on this later. No increase in salaries, the only benefit increase was in health care costs which every city employee received but we had to fight the city for, and they have been reducing manpower for the past 10 years, most recently was the last 29 firefighters that they will hopefully rehire and retain for more than the next two years with Federal money.

This is a load of hogwash barnold. What is the number of actual uniformed officers in the department in 2007 (pre-recession) compared to 1997? And don't give us some number that includes support personnel who are no longer needed due to computerized and automated paperwork processes these days.

What does any of this have to do with MAPS? You didn't address an ounce of betts' post. Why has your strategy been to oppose money going anywhere else? Why don't you just stick to your issue? I don't get that. It doesn't matter at this point if you guys got the shaft or not. What matters is that you all have turned a lot of the public against you. Proof? You all have now lost 3 straight elections that you all were extremely involved in, and that's just in a 3-year span.

Pete, I'm not sure where you are getting your fire statistics from but you are way off base. Generally abandoned buildings don't have the number one cause of fire in them; human occupancy. Arson fires occur but are not near as frequent as those caused by human error or omission.

You mis-read what I wrote. I said abandoned or badly maintained.

And lots of fires are started by homeless trying to stay warm in abandoned buildings, are they not?

... What is the number of actual uniformed officers in the department in 2007 (pre-recession) compared to 1997? And don't give us some number that includes support personnel who are no longer needed due to computerized and automated paperwork processes these days. ...

These numbers are odd as they show partial numbers, but from the 2007-08 budget book it shows the following:

"Summary of Position by Purpose"

74.90 = Administration
2.35 = Emergency Management
270.65 = Investigations
745.15 = Operations
205.95 = Public Safety Support
1,290.00 = Total Department

"The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) represents all sworn positions within the Police Department. The proposed budget includes 1,033 FOP positions." (Presumably this is uniformed officers)

Unfortunately the budget books don't go back to 1997 for comparison.

I think that's because they're FTEs, not actual people. Some of the civilian employees may be part-time.

Are you freaking kidding me guru? That's not even close to the situation Tulsa is in. They have an extremely corrupt and inept government that has been in-fighting for decades, but their downtown has just as much development (sans Devon) as ours right now if not more still. They were announcing weekly potential development deals at a time that nothing was happening in OKC for months on end last year. Tulsa is still adding just as many jobs and new residents to their metro as we are...

You need to put down your OKC glasses next time you talk Tulsa. I don't mean to jump on you, but someone needs to police statements like that on here, that's all. I usually agree with you most of the time on things..

No offense taken. I agree that Tulsa is doing some killer things and has made some improvement downtown, what I was referring to was the dramatic increase in crime there while their Mayor-Council infighting has gotten even worse. Their police force is under federal investigation. Their downtown vacancy rate has grown. They have lost more than a dozen corporate headquarters over the last 10 years. Meanwhile, their actual city population has DECLINED as reported in this year's census as their sprawl has exploded. These are not healthy developments for that city.

Yes, they have a pretty new ballpark and a somewhat thriving youth scene/music scene and a couple of condo developments. But the overall trend is not positive.

Tulsa is still adding just as many jobs and new residents to their metro as we are...

The situation in Tulsa has certainly been improving, Spartan, but that statement is just not true.

No offense taken. I agree that Tulsa is doing some killer things and has made some improvement downtown, what I was referring to was the dramatic increase in crime there while their Mayor-Council infighting has gotten even worse. Their police force is under federal investigation. Their downtown vacancy rate has grown. They have lost more than a dozen corporate headquarters over the last 10 years. Meanwhile, their actual city population has DECLINED as reported in this year's census as their sprawl has exploded. These are not healthy developments for that city.

Yes, they have a pretty new ballpark and a somewhat thriving youth scene/music scene and a couple of condo developments. But the overall trend is not positive.

I believe Tulsa actually made population gains toward the end of the decade, but, but did lose a few thousand at the beginning of the decade when the Dot.com bust hit Tulsa really hard. You are right though that crime increased, but Tulsa has these contained areas where they've lost control (ie, 61st and Peoria) and certain neighborhoods in North Tulsa along Pine/Virgin/etc which is why I've never actually seen much of North Tulsa, despite being pretty familiar with most of Tulsa. I agree that it was a very bad situation when they were losing population and their sprawl was exploding at the same time, but the only difference I see between that and OKC's scenario is that OKC can still benefit from the prolonged white flight because it has over 600 sq miles, and OKC is still the biggest sprawler in Central Oklahoma by far. Tulsa can't sprawl anymore because it has less land, actual natural boundaries, and larger suburbs that are boxing it in--so Tulsa is actually forced to find a way to grow its inner city, unlike OKC. If OKC city limits only existed between I-240 and Lake Hefner (a proper comparison I think), I'm not sure OKC proper would have had any population growth in that case.

I think you have to evaluate Tulsa's progress from a different standard. It's more of a Chicago standard (no population growth, political problems, but constantly gentrifying new neighborhoods and improving quality of life), whereas you can evaluate OKC from more of an LA or Dallas standard (political transparency, public trust in government, population growth, utter lip service on sustainability and urban things).

I believe Tulsa actually made population gains toward the end of the decade, but, but did lose a few thousand at the beginning of the decade when the Dot.com bust hit Tulsa really hard. You are right though that crime increased, but Tulsa has these contained areas where they've lost control (ie, 61st and Peoria) and certain neighborhoods in North Tulsa along Pine/Virgin/etc which is why I've never actually seen much of North Tulsa, despite being pretty familiar with most of Tulsa. I agree that it was a very bad situation when they were losing population and their sprawl was exploding at the same time, but the only difference I see between that and OKC's scenario is that OKC can still benefit from the prolonged white flight because it has over 600 sq miles, and OKC is still the biggest sprawler in Central Oklahoma by far. Tulsa can't sprawl anymore because it has less land, actual natural boundaries, and larger suburbs that are boxing it in--so Tulsa is actually forced to find a way to grow its inner city, unlike OKC. If OKC city limits only existed between I-240 and Lake Hefner (a proper comparison I think), I'm not sure OKC proper would have had any population growth in that case.

I think you have to evaluate Tulsa's progress from a different standard. It's more of a Chicago standard (no population growth, political problems, but constantly gentrifying new neighborhoods and improving quality of life), whereas you can evaluate OKC from more of an LA or Dallas standard (political transparency, public trust in government, population growth, utter lip service on sustainability and urban things).

I've always thought that if you could combine OKC and Tulsa it would be a killer city. Trust me, though, in my former occupation, I would spend spend many days and nights a month in Tulsa (all of Tulsa) and its suburbs. I have dear friends there and many close business connections. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance.

Frankly, other than the Blue Dome District, their downtown is absolutely dead. They do have supercool things, though, that as an OKC resident I envy.

Still, the underlying trends in Tulsa -- especially economically -- are not good. They are about to lose yet another corporate HQ when Dollar-Thrifty is gone. This is a continuing saga.

It's easier to paper over in Tulsa though because it's more dense than OKC and it has a lot of old wealth. Incredible wealth. But as an engine of job creation it is fading -- in stark contrast to OKC. This is just the way it is.

As for the crime, read today's Tulsa World. A nine-year-old was shot in his house at 11th and Lewis IN SOUTH TULSA as his house was hit with a shower of bullets. Stories like this are not uncommon. In the last year, they've had high-profile kidnappings, home invasions and murders in some of the nicest areas of Midtown, such as near Utica Square. Meanwhile, their police force is dysfunctional and under federal investigation. So far, nearly a dozen officers have been indicted for falsifying evidence, etc.

Tulsa is a steaming mess with a new Wolfgang Puck Bistro. I have nothing against the city but it has been declining for a decade. Much more needs to be done but probably won't because of its toxically dysfunctional city government.

Ironically, today's Tulsa World editorial suggests the city just outsource its government management to OKC! Read it here: http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=261&articleid=20110306_261_G1_CUTLIN732165

Bumping this thread to remind everyone with a brain how terribly the Oklahoman is covering this race. It's one thing for Christie Gaylord-Everest and the rest of "the family" to slander Ed Shadid. It's quite another for the "news" department of the Oklahoman to continue to ignore the blatant cronyism of their own newspaper in trying to get Charlie Swinton elected. This is actually the worst I've seen of the Oklahoman in a long time, and completely justifies the "worst newspaper in America" label.

Can you post a link to the alleged smear job the news department is doing on Shadid? I can't find anything online, but I may have missed it.

Can you post a link to the alleged smear job the news department is doing on Shadid? I can't find anything online, but I may have missed it.

There's not one, it's imaginary, made up, not true. Just hating.

Can you post a link to the alleged smear job the news department is doing on Shadid? I can't find anything online, but I may have missed it.

1. They had one editorial accusing him of "injecting partisanship" into the race. He's not even registered to a political party and his opponent was the one calling himself a "yellow dog Democrat" to some folks and a conservative to others. Shadid made no reference to his political party -- of which he belongs to none.

2. They had a separate editorial aligning him with the Tea Partiers and anti-MAPS crowd, and constantly linking him to the unions despite the fact he took no money from the unions, supports MAPS, and couldn't be more distant in viewpoint than the Tea Partiers.

3. They accused him of trying to get elected by "bashing city government," something he has not done.

Obviously you didn't read the whole thread, and perhaps you don't read the Oklahoman very often, but they remove links after a few days and make you pay for them through their archives, so the original editorials are no longer there.

The irony is they are completely in the tank for Swinton, the corrupt insider, so instead of saying anything positive about him -- they really haven't -- they're just mindlessly trashing Shadid.

RCJunkie: it's ironic you refer to me as a hater. You honestly contribute nothing to this board but negativity.

1. They had one editorial accusing him of "injecting partisanship" into the race. He's not even registered to a political party and his opponent was the one calling himself a "yellow dog Democrat" to some folks and a conservative to others. Shadid made no reference to his political party -- of which he belongs to none.

2. They had a separate editorial aligning him with the Tea Partiers and anti-MAPS crowd, and constantly linking him to the unions despite the fact he took no money from the unions, supports MAPS, and couldn't be more distant in viewpoint than the Tea Partiers.

3. They accused him of trying to get elected by "bashing city government," something he has not done.

Obviously you didn't read the whole thread, and perhaps you don't read the Oklahoman very often, but they remove links after a few days and make you pay for them through their archives, so the original editorials are no longer there.

The irony is they are completely in the tank for Swinton, the corrupt insider, so instead of saying anything positive about him -- they really haven't -- they're just mindlessly trashing Shadid.

RCJunkie: it's ironic you refer to me as a hater. You honestly contribute nothing to this board but negativity.

I read the Oklahoman and the editorial page every day and don't remember the terms you're referring to. I'm not saying it didn't happen but, if it did, it must not have made a very big impression on me and must have been very subtle.

I saw #3 (but they didn't give any specifics).

As far as #1 & #2, can't recall against Shadid specifically but they did lump one or two other candidates together with the tea partyers. May not have been in the editorial but in regular articles.

1. They had one editorial accusing him of "injecting partisanship" into the race. He's not even registered to a political party and his opponent was the one calling himself a "yellow dog Democrat" to some folks and a conservative to others. Shadid made no reference to his political party -- of which he belongs to none.

2. They had a separate editorial aligning him with the Tea Partiers and anti-MAPS crowd, and constantly linking him to the unions despite the fact he took no money from the unions, supports MAPS, and couldn't be more distant in viewpoint than the Tea Partiers.

3. They accused him of trying to get elected by "bashing city government," something he has not done.

Obviously you didn't read the whole thread, and perhaps you don't read the Oklahoman very often, but they remove links after a few days and make you pay for them through their archives, so the original editorials are no longer there.

The irony is they are completely in the tank for Swinton, the corrupt insider, so instead of saying anything positive about him -- they really haven't -- they're just mindlessly trashing Shadid.

RCJunkie: it's ironic you refer to me as a hater. You honestly contribute nothing to this board but negativity.

Post the links, please. Or did you just make this crap up?

There's not one, it's imaginary, made up, not true. Just hating.


1. They had one editorial accusing him of "injecting partisanship" into the race. He's not even registered to a political party and his opponent was the one calling himself a "yellow dog Democrat" to some folks and a conservative to others. Shadid made no reference to his political party -- of which he belongs to none.

2. They had a separate editorial aligning him with the Tea Partiers and anti-MAPS crowd, and constantly linking him to the unions despite the fact he took no money from the unions, supports MAPS, and couldn't be more distant in viewpoint than the Tea Partiers.

3. They accused him of trying to get elected by "bashing city government," something he has not done.

Obviously you didn't read the whole thread, and perhaps you don't read the Oklahoman very often, but they remove links after a few days and make you pay for them through their archives, so the original editorials are no longer there.

The irony is they are completely in the tank for Swinton, the corrupt insider, so instead of saying anything positive about him -- they really haven't -- they're just mindlessly trashing Shadid.

RCJunkie: it's ironic you refer to me as a hater. You honestly contribute nothing to this board but negativity.



Post the links, please. Or did you just make this crap up?
Soonerguru is right on this one folks...

Example of #1 (injecting partisanship)
The irony here is that the Oklahoman seemed to go out of there way to point out the political backing of the 2 tea party candidates at nearly every turn. Something they barely made a mention of with other candidates. So who again is injecting partisanship in the race? The Oklahoman. There was a news article that mentioned Shadid had run previously for another position but was an independent candidate. Since the Oklahoman doesn't offer any support for the "left" claim (and I haven't run across it other than in campaign stuff from Swinton), I guess independent = left??
Some Oklahoma City Council hopefuls scorning voters' will (Oklahoman editorial, 2/28/11)

Even worse than the sour grapes motivation is the partisanship being injected into races for nonpartisan council positions - Ed Shadid (Ward 2) from the left and Adrian Van Manen (Ward 6) and Cliff Hearron (Ward 8) from the right.

Example of #2 (lumping Shadid with the two tea party candidates). Sorry for the repeat but it shows the complete lumping together better.
Some Oklahoma City Council hopefuls scorning voters' will (Oklahoman editorial, 2/28/11)

Even worse than the sour grapes motivation is the partisanship being injected into races for nonpartisan council positions - Ed Shadid (Ward 2) from the left and Adrian Van Manen (Ward 6) and Cliff Hearron (Ward 8) from the right.

Continued opposition to MAPS 3 is an insult to the majority of voters who turned out for the election at a rate twice as high as a typical municipal election. MAPS 3 passed with more than 54 percent of the vote.

Behind the candidacies of Shadid, Van Manen and Hearron are public employee unions that opposed MAPS 3. The candidates refused to answer surveys on their positions. Van Manen and Hearron snubbed voters by failing to attend an important citywide candidate forum on Feb. 18.
complete editorial here for #1 & #2: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city-council-hopefuls-scorning-voters-will/article/3543925#

This "refused to answer" line is odd and appears to be lifted directly from the Chamber site as they used the phrase there (apparently they didn't answer the Chamber's questions and that meant they "refused" to answer). What makes it odd, is the same candidates that "refused", answered the Oklahoman's list of questions that they presented to all of the Council candidates. Don't think a single one refused to answer those questions from the paper.

Ed Shadid, Ward 2 candidate answered their questions here: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-ward-2-candidates-answer-questions/article/3543100#

Adrian Van Manen, Ward 6 candidate answered here: http://newsok.com/feed/city-ward-6-candidates-answer-questions/article/3542456?custom_click=pod_headline_news#

Clifford Hearron, Ward 8 candidate answered here: http://www.newsok.com/article/3542614#



Example of #3 (Bashing City Government unsupported claim)
Oklahoma City Council elections send clear signals (Oklahoman editorial, 3/3/11)

The one council race not decided Tuesday was in Ward 2, where Charlie Swinton and Ed Shadid were top vote-getters in a six-person race. Shadid has made it a point to bash city government; we'll see how that message resonates in the runoff April 5.
complete editorial here: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-elections-send-clear-signals/article/3545310?custom_click=headlines_widget#

Soonerguru is right on this one folks...

Example of #1 (injecting partisanship)
The irony here is that the Oklahoman seemed to go out of there way to point out the political backing of the 2 tea party candidates at nearly every turn. Something they barely made a mention of with other candidates. So who again is injecting partisanship in the race? The Oklahoman. There was a news article that mentioned Shadid had run previously for another position but was an independent candidate. Since the Oklahoman doesn't offer any support for the "left" claim (and I haven't run across it other than in campaign stuff from Swinton), I guess independent = left??
Some Oklahoma City Council hopefuls scorning voters' will (Oklahoman editorial, 2/28/11)


Example of #2 (lumping Shadid with the two tea party candidates). Sorry for the repeat but it shows the complete lumping together better.
Some Oklahoma City Council hopefuls scorning voters' will (Oklahoman editorial, 2/28/11)

complete editorial here for #1 & #2: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city-council-hopefuls-scorning-voters-will/article/3543925#

This "refused to answer" line is odd and appears to be lifted directly from the Chamber site as they used the phrase there (apparently they didn't answer the Chamber's questions and that meant they "refused" to answer). What makes it odd, is the same candidates that "refused", answered the Oklahoman's list of questions that they presented to all of the Council candidates. Don't think a single one refused to answer those questions from the paper.

Ed Shadid, Ward 2 candidate answered their questions here: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-ward-2-candidates-answer-questions/article/3543100#

Adrian Van Manen, Ward 6 candidate answered here: http://newsok.com/feed/city-ward-6-candidates-answer-questions/article/3542456?custom_click=pod_headline_news#

Clifford Hearron, Ward 8 candidate answered here: http://www.newsok.com/article/3542614#



Example of #3 (Bashing City Government unsupported claim)
Oklahoma City Council elections send clear signals (Oklahoman editorial, 3/3/11)

complete editorial here: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-elections-send-clear-signals/article/3545310?custom_click=headlines_widget#


Sorry, Larry, but I think that's pretty weak. And if that's truly what SoonerGuru is referring to, she needs to get out of the political arena because she has some pretty thin skin.

Anyone fair minded person who saw Shadid's ads in the Gazette early on in the campaign knows he was trying to inject his "left" leaning views in the campaign without explicitly stating them. I have copies of all the recent Gazettes at my office, so I will try to scan the ads in to show the examples. Personally, I don't care that he did this. If it communicates to the voter what kind of representative he will be, good. But don't claim he didn't do it.

The "lumping together with tea party candidates" is perhaps the weakest example. The way they were lumped together was in their relation to the public employee unions who opposed MAPS 3, not the in relation to the tea party or any other partisan manner. Is it a fact or isn't it that both the tea party candidates and Shadid received the endorsement of the public employees unions who opposed MAPS 3?

If it is a fact (it is), then what SoonerGuru is complaining about is that The Oklahoman decided to mention something that was both FACT and politically inconvenient for her preferred candidate. That's tough.

Finally, let me make on last thing clear: I have no horse in the fight between Shadid and Swinton. From what I can tell on OKCTalk, both would make good councilmen. I just hate it when SoonerGuru or others make crap up, similar to what SG said about the campaign finance laws in the other thread about the funding of this race.

Sorry, Larry, but I think that's pretty weak. And if that's truly what SoonerGuru is referring to, she needs to get out of the political arena because she has some pretty thin skin.

Anyone fair minded person who saw Shadid's ads in the Gazette early on in the campaign knows he was trying to inject his "left" leaning views in the campaign without explicitly stating them. I have copies of all the recent Gazettes at my office, so I will try to scan the ads in to show the examples. Personally, I don't care that he did this. If it communicates to the voter what kind of representative he will be, good. But don't claim he didn't do it.

The "lumping together with tea party candidates" is perhaps the weakest example. The way they were lumped together was in their relation to the public employee unions who opposed MAPS 3, not the in relation to the tea party or any other partisan manner. Is it a fact or isn't it that both the tea party candidates and Shadid received the endorsement of the public employees unions who opposed MAPS 3?

If it is a fact (it is), then what SoonerGuru is complaining about is that The Oklahoman decided to mention something that was both FACT and politically inconvenient for her preferred candidate. That's tough.

Finally, let me make on last thing clear: I have no horse in the fight between Shadid and Swinton. From what I can tell on OKCTalk, both would make good councilmen. I just hate it when SoonerGuru or others make crap up, similar to what SG said about the campaign finance laws in the other thread about the funding of this race.

Not that I really five a fock what you think about me, but I'm a man, not a woman. You may think my commentary was weak, but it was not "made up." Don't be such a jack officer.

Not that I really five a fock what you think about me, but I'm a man, not a woman. You may think my commentary was weak, but it was not "made up." Don't be such a jack officer.

I apologize for the gender confusion.

At least your intellect is showing through with posts such as the above. Your commentary and responses to criticism are weak, yes.

I apologize for the gender confusion.

At least your intellect is showing through with posts such as the above. Your commentary and responses to criticism are weak, yes.

It's impossible to have a discussion with someone as thick-headed as you are. Not sure why you're that way. Perhaps you just have a knee-jerk impulse to defend the Oklahoman. Maybe you're employed there. Maybe you dislike my posts. Whatever.

Still, it's totally reasonable for you to look at my posts in this thread and disagree, or suggest my points are weak, but to say they are "made up" when I gave specific examples is just bull****. You're now on the ignore list.

Sorry, Larry, but I think that's pretty weak.
What was weak about #1 & #3? I gave you the quotes and links that described exactly what he was saying.

As far as lumping together, the weakness comes from the sloppy writing. If you break it down, it is clear that they are talking about different things, but the overall editorial is the lumping together of tea party/anti-MAPS/union support. While there may certainly be some overlap among those 3 things, to broadly paint all with the same brush, is sloppy. I agree it was not their best writing to be sure. Then for them to claim that the candidates "refused" to answer (a specific Chamber questionnaire, which they conveniently failed to mention) when those same candidates answered the questions put to them by the very same paper, is absurd.


I just hate it when SoonerGuru or others make crap up, similar to what SG said about the campaign finance laws in the other thread about the funding of this race.
Again, he didn't make it up. I gave you the specifics. Right there in black and white. I even bolded the specific language they used.

You may disagree with the conclusion he has reached (that they are trying to "smear Shadid") and that is your prerogative. But to claim that he made it up when it put right there in front of you in black and white (with the links to the entire editorial so you can see if something is taken out of context etc), is a bit over the top.

I haven't gone back to that other thread and maybe someone was confusing one case over another, but are you talking about the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Read your March 16 edition of the Gazette, it has an article stating the same things that were being talked about in that thread about campaign finance laws. Now I don't know if the author of the piece is confused or doesn't have their facts straight, but it is there as well. The name of the article is: Who's Behind the Money? (pg 9) 1st column, last paragraph. it starts out with: "A year ago, these non-PAC groups would have been severely restricted..."

soonerguru, at this point I'm not concerned about your viewpoints or arguments. The kind of language you decide to use to make some points here is out of line for this forum. You can surely make your feelings known without that.

What was weak about #1 & #3? I gave you the quotes and links that described exactly what he was saying.

As far as lumping together, the weakness comes from the sloppy writing. If you break it down, it is clear that they are talking about different things, but the overall editorial is the lumping together of tea party/anti-MAPS/union support. While there may certainly be some overlap among those 3 things, to broadly paint all with the same brush, is sloppy. I agree it was not their best writing to be sure. Then for them to claim that the candidates "refused" to answer (a specific Chamber questionnaire, which they conveniently failed to mention) when those same candidates answered the questions put to them by the very same paper, is absurd.


Again, he didn't make it up. I gave you the specifics. Right there in black and white. I even bolded the specific language they used.

You may disagree with the conclusion he has reached (that they are trying to "smear Shadid") and that is your prerogative. But to claim that he made it up when it put right there in front of you in black and white (with the links to the entire editorial so you can see if something is taken out of context etc), is a bit over the top.

I haven't gone back to that other thread and maybe someone was confusing one case over another, but are you talking about the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? Read your March 16 edition of the Gazette, it has an article stating the same things that were being talked about in that thread about campaign finance laws. Now I don't know if the author of the piece is confused or doesn't have their facts straight, but it is there as well. The name of the article is: Who's Behind the Money? (pg 9) 1st column, last paragraph. it starts out with: "A year ago, these non-PAC groups would have been severely restricted..."

Larry, what is weak about 1 and 3 is that the examples you gave from the Oklahoman's editorials are pretty darn tame. If that's what people are upset about, my suggestion to get thicker skin stands, especially if those people are going to be involved in politics. It is a fact that Shadid tried to communicate his partisan leanings into his race with some of the ads he ran in the Gazette. Like I said, when I get back to my office, I'll try to scan the examples of the ads. Also like I said, I don't really have a problem with Shadid doing that. But don't claim he didn't. And don't claim the Oklahoman is involved in some "smear" campaign against Shadid simply because they bring that fact up.

I don't know what the Gazette article said. SoonerGuru (and many others not on the forum) said that Citizens United v. FEC allowed for corporations to donate unlimited money to candidates and allowed for them to do it anonymously. That's 100% false. If it could be 110% false, it would be. If the Gazette article said the same thing, then they need a better reporter. Most importantly, that SCOTUS case applied to FEDERAL candidates, not to city council races, as the case struck down certain federal campaign finance restrictions. And under the law, even with the SCOTUS case applied, corporate (and union) contributions to those candidates are forbidden. Disclosure requirements for independent expenditures still exist.

So, if you guys have problems with CITY campaign finance disclosure laws, take it up with the city, not SCOTUS.

I responded to that point primarily because what SoonerGuru said was so counter to fact that it made me question so much of what he's said in the past and question his support for particular candidates. If he can't get basic facts straight, instead resorting to demagoguery, I'm lead to question the basis for his support of Shadid and other causes.

In the above tit-for-tat, I think that one of the problems ... certainly for me as far as my personal knowledge is concerned ... is the existing absence of knowledge concerning the legal reporting requirements of super-PACS when it comes down to the state and/or municipal level. Frankly, I don't know what they are, even at the federal level. Whether the federal requirements, whatever they may be, sift down to state and municipal elections in mirror-image of the federal context, I don't know that, either.

It would be great if someone with knowledge would articulate what they actually know, or think they know about reporting requirements of the super-PACs (contributors, limits if any of the amounts of contributions, method of deciding how contributions are expended, etc.), without getting all puffed-up. When I was very young and lived with my spit-fire 4' 11" grandmother so many years ago, several of the phrases she would use to describe situations and other people have stuck in my memory, even though I still do not, to this day, understand the meaning of them all. On such phrase she used, was, "Well, he's a blowed up sucker." I've actually researched that phrase but have found no definitive answer. A sucker fish that gets puffed up and possibly explodes, I wondered? I don't know. Probably, that doesn't fit anyone's arguments here, but, still, the phrase does come to mind. No offense is intended to anyone by relating this anecdotal information.

By the way, some of her phrases were more clearly defined. When she said, "Go get me a limber switch," there was no doubt of her intended meaning.

Nice call but wrong! Police and fire are not endorsing him! They are supporting him! And he has never said anything about additional funding or anything about maps! So don't listen to chamber lies!