Well if this were to not be parking, the Cotter Ranch Tower would stay empty and unowned...so this will, for eternity, be a parking garage for BancFirst and Continental. If the city decided to see it for development, then BancFirst would not buy the building. Is that worth it, to you?
^^^^^^^
This, 100%.

I wasn't happy about the secret meetings and such, but was generally okay with this deal happening as it seemed to solve some problems, but I didn't realize how much we were being ripped off. Not saying we should get the 36M or more, but we should get north of the lowball price if possible.

A parking garage is going to be built just on the other side of EKG and there are other locations for parking.

Also, BancFirst was one of 7 final bids on Cotter Tower. Just because they are making this demand does not mean the other buyers would as well.


The city is planning to demolish a big chunk of parking at Cox Center to aid redevelopment. There are always ways around any such issue.

I think “secret meetings” is an unfair and misleading characterization. We elect City officials to conduct the City’s business. They quite legally appoint and hire individuals to manage the business day-to-day. City staff and associated trusts routinely negotiate deals with the private sector, sometimes worth millions of dollars. It’s what they are hired to do.

They then routinely meet with their superiors (the superiors who hired them) and inform those people of the details of their negotiations and make recommendations regarding which action they’d advise the elected officials make. This is how government (and even private business) works.

There are also very specific open meetings law which governs when a meeting is supposed to be public. As far as I know or can tell from any resources I can find online, the City of Oklahoma complies with these laws. There are many assertions being made suggesting violations of thes laws but few if any specific examples of this accompanied by links to the corresponding law being violated.

I guess you can characterize any meeting between public officials and members of the business community which is not held in an open meeting as “secret.” If this is the case I personally had three “secret” meetings yesterday, and there are likely many thousands held each week in Oklahoma City.

I was using "secret meetings" in continuation of the context of this discussion for lack of a better term (thus the quotes), which may have been unfair. Maybe I should have said "less transparent than preferred meetings" or something. I'm generally, personally, more open and trusting of the, as you noted, representatives elected to act on my behalf. Heck, I am one in the most minor of senses. That said, I very much want as much transparency as feasible from the same (above and beyond if possible -- more is better, if for no other reason than to shut down the naysayers).

Shawn, I generally agree with you here and as someone else who I know personally and whose involvement I’m familiar with I will vouch for your earnestness and desire to improve Oklahoma City, just as I have stated about Pete. I honestly hate taking issue with him or anyone else here. I just think this is an incredibly important topic in which we should all choose our words accordingly.

There are many assertions being made suggesting violations of thes laws but few if any specific examples of this accompanied by links to the corresponding law being violated.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=38099&page=4&p=1039683#post1039683

You don't need to have parking for Cotter Ranch Tower and CLR in the form of the current Santa Fe Garage. The idea that a building nearby needs a concrete monolith that was built in the 1970s to succeed is simply laziness.

The order of events needs to be as follows:

1 - Santa Fe Garage ownership remains, Bancfirst and CLR continue to rent out spaces from the city.
2 - Karchmer Garage construction starts. (like it should have years ago)
3 - Cox Center demolished. Any displaced CLR parkers are moved to remaining Santa Fe spots and new Karchmer spots.
4 - City begins RFPs on parcels @ former Cox site. (including non-hideous garage on one of them)
5 - CLR can now rent spots @ new garage.
6 - City plans demolition of Santa Fe. Cotter Ranch parkers are now in Karchmer garage.
7 - City now begins RFPs on parcels @ former Santa Fe garage site. (including a non-hideous garage on one of them)

This timeline provides maximum $$$ for the city. And it also improves the entire area and opens the floodgates to massive property tax collection across large city blocks.

Reminder that CLR parks mainly at Cox Center and it's not going anywhere before two years and maybe much longer.

You don't need to have parking for Cotter Ranch Tower and CLR in the form of the current Santa Fe Garage. The idea that a building nearby needs a concrete monolith that was built in the 1970s to succeed is simply laziness.

The order of events needs to be as follows:

1 - Santa Fe Garage ownership remains, Bancfirst and CLR continue to rent out spaces from the city.
2 - Karchmer Garage construction starts. (like it should have years ago)
3 - Cox Center demolished. Any displaced CLR parkers are moved to remaining Santa Fe spots and new Karchmer spots.
4 - City begins RFPs on parcels @ former Cox site. (including non-hideous garage on one of them)
5 - CLR can now rent spots @ new garage.
6 - City plans demolition of Santa Fe. Cotter Ranch parkers are now in Karchmer garage.
7 - City now begins RFPs on parcels @ former Santa Fe garage site. (including a non-hideous garage on one of them)

This timeline provides maximum $$$ for the city. And it also improves the entire area and opens the floodgates to massive property tax collection across large city blocks.
Does not address COTPA bonding capacity.

Does not address COTPA bonding capacity.

When various public bodies were presented with the need to borrow money for the convention center garage, there was no contingency for selling the SF garage.

They could merely continue to carry the debt for that as they do with the Arts District Garage, which was all that was contemplated during these approvals.

To fully understand the financial impact of selling the garage in order to pay down debt, a much more detailed financial analysis would need to be conducted.

And, if this is such an issue, then it seems the city is willing to accept an amount far below market value which diminishes the abilty to pay of remaining COTPA debt, which will still exist if this sale goes through as outlined.

Read the full MOU's for the SF Garage and the Karchmer deal here:

http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=521-Read-the-full-agreements-for-the-sale-of-a-city-parking-garage

A reminder: the City of Oklahoma City does not own the Santa Fe Parking Garage. It is owned by the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority, which is a municipal trust created half a century ago for the benefit of the City of Oklahoma City and its taxpayers. Nor would the City be building a new parking garage; COTPA would. I know this seems like hair splitting, but it is really not. Public trusts are legal and fiduciary instruments which serve a distinct purpose and which are used by municipalities all over the United States.

I would encourage anyone reading this topic to also take a few minutes to read these explanations of exactly what public trusts are and what purpose they serve:

http://www.crawfordcpas.com/Municipalpublictrusts.pdf

One of the main reasons trusts exist is to incur long-term debt on behalf of the beneficiary municipality, as cities by law cannot themselves incur such debt. To do this those trusts sell revenue bonds, which are very stable but relatively low-yield investments. Their ability to do this is limited by their own bonding capacity. To free up bonding capacity when they want to build a new facility they may do so by selling off an existing asset.

It is very important to note that municipalities and their trusts are not for-profit entities. Their responsibilities and priorities are very different from that of individuals or of a private for-profit business. While there is no question they have a responsibility to taxpayers to not be reckless or wasteful with their assets, turning a profit or even getting fair market value is often very low on their list of priorities or even not a consideration.

Their priorities must be serving the best overall public interest. This can be in the form of encouraging development in a particular area, spurring economic development, serving a public need such as transportation, public safety, infrastructure, parking, etc.

The City of Oklahoma City itself has a ONE BILLION DOLLAR annual budget. And while they have a responsibility to not be wasteful or overspend, returning a profit is not a consideration in any way, shape or form. City government and its related instruments such as trusts exist to make a city run, period. And if running correctly, this also means economic growth for the private sector, which in turn itself funds government.

In the case of the discussed transactions it seems likely that COTPA’s priorities are as follows:


Shed an existing asset to increase bonding capacity and enable bonding for new parking facilities which will help maximize economic impact of other City investments including the convention center, Omni Hotel partnership and Scissortail Park
Building other parking facilities to facilitate development and leasing in the CBD and Bricktown where there is significant ongoing public and private investment
Enable contiguous privately-controlled parking for the new owners of Cotter Ranch tower - a key and currently-distressed property in the CBD - which will enable them to more easily lease space in the tower and ensure a successful rehabilitation of this critically-important office building
Allow Continental Resources to own and control parking connected to their own office tower, ensuring the stability of those high-paying jobs in the CBD
Free up parking requirements in the Cox Center underground lot (currently needed by Continental), which could enable the long term demolition and redevelopment of the Cox Center

This is all big-picture thinking with many moving pieces. According to the legal responsibilities of a municipality and of a public trust, all of these factors must be considered when making such decisions. Simply holding out and selling the garage to the highest bidder like a traditional real estate transaction would completely miss the point of these agencies and their responsibilities to the taxpayers they serve.

In this case, with all of the related benefits and potential for positive economic impact, a discounted price vs what it would cost to build is certainly not unreasonable.

And again, these decisions are being made by elected officials and by their appointees and hires. If you disagree with their choices - which is 100% your right - I would suggest attending meetings, listening to discussion regarding why the decisions are being made this way, and if still not satisfied registering to speak (this is 100% your right in public meetings).

If you still aren’t satisfied, contact your respective City Council representatives, RESPECTFULLY ask them why they support such decisions and LISTEN to their explanation. If you disagree with their philosophies, work to change their minds. If you aren’t satisfied after that, support/campaign on behalf of their opponents in the next election. Or run yourself. It is that simple.

These people are hired by us to conduct business on behalf of our city. Personally I believe they are doing an excellent job. If you don’t, that is certainly your right.

But I think it is INCREDIBLY important to fully understand the role and the business of government when weighing in on whether or not it is acting ethically and/or legally. And if you think it boils down to flipping public assets for the best market value you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.

Agree. The big picture should always be in focus and selling to the highest bidder isn't always the best move.

But suddenly selling a trophy asset downtown that is below market by 33% or $8,000,000-$10,000,000 (probably more) is bananas and not in the best interest of the city no matter how you spin it. It's important to remember who holds all the leverage, the city, not BancFirst or Continental. Someone will buy Cotter Tower regardless.

COTPA hasn't demonstrated the best judgement in the past. This is the same COTPA who conducted an audit and discovered over $400,000+ was stolen over two years. What about the so-called renovation experiment at the Santa Fe garage? All that money spent to attract new tenants on the first floor of retail and how did that work out? Replaced old elevators that needed repairs from time to time with newer, low-quality elevators that need repairs daily?

Hate to be critical, but this is common sense stuff.

^

And actual operating income for a new purchaser would be well above $2MM.

The city allocates COTPA overhead to the Santa Fe Garage and then that number is deducted from the bottom line, about $1MM per year.

If a private party was to buy and operate that garage, their actual expenses would be a fraction of that.

Also, the land alone under this property is worth a ton of money. The city just paid $14MM to OG&E for a similar sized property in a far less desirable location (EKG and the OKC Boulevard).

SF Garage is also served both by the Underground system and the skywalk leads all the way to the Cox Center.

Pete, I am curious... has COPTA had the Santa Fe Garage appraised by more than one appraiser in the last 6 months?

When various public bodies were presented with the need to borrow money for the convention center garage, there was no contingency for selling the SF garage.

They could merely continue to carry the debt for that as they do with the Arts District Garage, which was all that was contemplated during these approvals.

To fully understand the financial impact of selling the garage in order to pay down debt, a much more detailed financial analysis would need to be conducted.

And, if this is such an issue, then it seems the city is willing to accept an amount far below market value which diminishes the abilty to pay of remaining COTPA debt, which will still exist if this sale goes through as outlined.
What IS the market value? Do you know it?

What IS the market value? Do you know it?

No, but there has been discussion upthread about valuation in light of the income stream, the value of the land and cost to build similar structures based on recent city projects.

All indicate that $22.5 million is very low.

I assume when the new appraisal is done they will use a qualified firm using commonly accepted methods. I would think they most likely would use the income method unless there is controversy about the durability of the income. Do we know the NET operating income over the last three years and the projected maintenance/repair figures?

^

Just to be clear, the price for the SF Garage is set.

It is the land to be sold to Karchmer that is subject to a new appraisal.

Got it. Thanks.

My friend Mark Gibbs who used to be an active OKC Talker and on the Streetcar Subcommittee before he moved used to joke that city management thought they were doing "God's work". Whenever we felt that things were being steamrolled by staff or if they were being unnecessarily secretive, he would exclaim "God's work!" He even did this in public meetings which was hilarious to me.

In reading all of these discussions on these various threads, debating compliance of the Open Meetings Act is really getting into the weeds. I personally think that there is real value in helping retain Banc First and Continental as major tenants downtown. If the valuation is lower than what the public asset is worth as asserted, that must be a motivator. The powers that be should just put that out there and be honest about it. However, it is a major public asset.

My friend Mark Gibbs who used to be an active OKC Talker and on the Streetcar Subcommittee before he moved used to joke that city management thought they were doing "God's work". Whenever we felt that things were being steamrolled by staff or if they were being unnecessarily secretive, he would exclaim "God's work!" He even did this in public meetings which was hilarious to me.

In reading all of these discussions on these various threads, debating compliance of the Open Meetings Act is really getting into the weeds. I personally think that there is real value in helping retain Banc First and Continental as major tenants downtown. If the valuation is lower than what the public asset is worth as asserted, that must be a motivator. The powers that be should just put that out there and be honest about it. However, it is a major public asset.

+1

Big fan of operating pragmatically and in the real world. Operating in a vacuum only works if everyone else does. If banc first wants to buy the garage but they'll rehab Cotter tower and be the anchor client, then the city should be as accommodating to that as possible. In the long run it's a huge net positive for the city.

+1

Big fan of operating pragmatically and in the real world. Operating in a vacuum only works if everyone else does. If banc first wants to buy the garage but they'll rehab Cotter tower and be the anchor client, then the city should be as accommodating to that as possible. In the long run it's a huge net positive for the city.

Lots and lots of other issues involved here, not the least of which is that BancFirst was only one of 7 finalists that bid for Cotter Tower. Lots of people wanted to buy it and all knew it needed to be renovated.

Things only seem simplistic because the huge majority of info -- like how this amount was even determined, when these discussions commenced, what were the other alternatives, etc. -- was handled completely behind closed doors.


I'm always skeptical when things are presented for decision in simple binary terms, especially with so little background info and at the last possible minute: Either we approve this agreement today for this amount under these terms with these companies OR Cotter Tower doesn't sell, sits vacant, decays, Continental moves out of downtown and the entire world collapses.

I will also point out that some members of city council were briefed on this matter on May 15th yet it is STILL yet to hit any public angenda even though the city manager has fully admitted the city council must take a vote on Tuesday due to BancFirst compressed timing.


There is simply no way for any member of the public or even the city council who has to give the approval can accurately assess all the variious parts to this.

And there is zero reason for things to be handled in this manner.

If you want expediancy and to get things done with the least amount of process and discussion, then you'd better 100% own a private business. This is PUBLIC money and the public has every right to know exactly what any member of a public body knows, when they know it.

The only exception are very narrowly defined Executive Sessions, which typically involve litigation or personnel issues. And those have to be announced in advance and generally described in an agenda published in advance.

Lots and lots of other issues involved here, not the least of which is that BancFirst was only one of 7 finalists that bid for Cotter Tower. Lots of people wanted to buy it and all knew it needed to be renovated.

Things only seem simplistic because the huge majority of info -- like how this amount was even determined, when these discussions commenced, what were the other alternatives, etc. -- was handled completely behind closed doors.


I'm always skeptical when things are presented for decision in simple binary terms, especially with so little background info and at the last possible minute: Either we approve this agreement today for this amount under these terms with these companies OR Cotter Tower doesn't sell, sits vacant, decays, Continental moves out of downtown and the entire world collapses.

I will also point out that some members of city council were briefed on this matter on May 15th yet it is STILL yet to hit any public angenda even though the city manager has fully admitted the city council must take a vote on Tuesday due to BancFirst compressed timing.


There is simply no way for any member of the public or even the city council who has to give the approval can accurately assess all the variious parts to this.

And there is zero reason for things to be handled in this manner.

If you want expediancy and to get things done with the least amount of process and discussion, then you'd better 100% own a private business. This is PUBLIC money and the public has every right to know exactly what any member of a public body knows, when they know it.

The only exception are very narrowly defined Executive Sessions, which typically involve litigation or personnel issues. And those have to be announced in advance and generally described in an agenda published in advance.

THIS!!!!! I did not know there were other bids for cotter. do we know who or what any of those bids were?

While the intention of those involved may not be corrupt and I don't think Pete has said those words, the practice of hiding this information surely leads to suspicion. The purpose of FOI is to make sure that those whos money and assets are being used, are being used properly. Remember.... the City doesn't own any of this... it's citizens do.

No, but there has been discussion upthread about valuation in light of the income stream, the value of the land and cost to build similar structures based on recent city projects.

All indicate that $22.5 million is very low.

It may be a little low, but it is not very low.

1) Cost does not equal value. The Parkside Building is a great example of that fact.
2) An 8% cap rate (which seems more reasonable than institutional grade cap rates) with an assumed NOI of $2,000,000 indicates a value of $25,000,000.

I may be in the minority, but I think this sounds like a somewhat reasonable offer on the garage. It would be preferred to know more information regarding the income but it doesn't seem like COPTA is giving it away.

I will not judge motives, just the result.

Which is why this repeated process (which extends far beyond this garage) excludes necessary public understanding, discourse and the opportunity for all involved to have the best information possible before making a decision.

The question isn't "Is this good for OKC"? The real question is "What is the BEST thing for OKC?" And we will simply never know, nor will even city council who will be voting on Tuesday.


And not to call out Urban Pioneer but would you be this dismissive if it turns out the Karchmer MOU doesn't properly provide right of way for future commuter rail?

I'd suspect you'd be very upset for not consulting the proper experts OR at least receiving the proper notice that would allow interested parties to become involved in the public process and have a say.


It's the sum total of things, not just the garage.

It may be a little low, but it is not very low.

1) Cost does not equal value. The Parkside Building is a great example of that fact.
2) An 8% cap rate (which seems more reasonable than institutional grade cap rates) with an assumed NOI of $2,000,000 indicates a value of $25,000,000.

I may be in the minority, but I think this sounds like a somewhat reasonable offer on the garage. It would be preferred to know more information regarding the income but it doesn't seem like COPTA is giving it away.

But there is simply no way for us to know that, is there?

And that's the bigger point.

I will not judge motives, just the result.

Which is why this repeated process (which extends far beyond this garage) excludes necessary public understanding, discourse and the opportunity for all involved to have the best information possible before making a decision.

The question isn't "Is this good for OKC"? The real question is "What is the BEST thing for OKC?" And we will simply never know, nor will even city council who will be voting on Tuesday.


And not to call out Urban Pioneer but would you be this dismissive if it turns out the Karchmer MOU doesn't properly provide right of way for future commuter rail?

I'd suspect you'd be very upset for not consulting the proper experts OR at least receiving the proper notice that would allow interested parties to become involved in the public process and have a say.


It's the sum total of things, not just the garage.


But there is simply no way for us to know that, is there?

And that's the bigger point.

Most of this is opinion. Not fact

Most of this is opinion. Not fact

I think that is the point... we don't know the facts... because they aren't all public...

Of course not the public meetings haven’t happened yet

Also it is really not the job of the public to decide if this is good or bad.

The public’s job is to decide if their elected reps are doing their job. And if not lobby them to change their mind or replace them

Of course not the public meetings haven’t happened yet
But isn't that the point here? There aren't going to be public meetings for this because they're going to be asked to vote on it the first time it comes before the council, correct?

And not to call out Urban Pioneer but would you be this dismissive if it turns out the Karchmer MOU doesn't properly provide right of way for future commuter rail?

I'd suspect you'd be very upset for not consulting the proper experts OR at least receiving the proper notice that would allow interested parties to become involved in the public process and have a say.

Well you literally did call me out. I cannot see how my comments are dismissive in the least. My point was, if the City Manager and company think they are doing "God's work" and that they believe that this is the BEST set of circumstances for our city, there is no reason to be secretive about any of this. As I stated in my earlier comments, this is "a major public asset".

Yes, I care about the rail alignment. So much so that argued against the last proposal five years ago. We weren't consulted then and we weren't consulted now. That is why "God's work" has always been such a joke among us transit advocates. But in following up with the powers to be, we have been assured that the alignment will be preserved. If it isn't, I among others, will exercise our right as citizens to protest the Karchmer project for what we believe is the greater public good long term.

And I would encourage you to watch the video. I fought for our city and its people and pointed out repeatedly that the Karchmer parking proposal should have never seen the light of day in its earlier form. It is ridiculous that we had to go to that meeting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nutwzcPP8TI&t=1776s

Also it is really not the job of the public to decide if this is good or bad.

The public’s job is to decide if their elected reps are doing their job. And if not lobby them to change their mind or replace them

First of all, most public bodies do not consist of elected officials.

Secondly, how do you 'change their mind' if you don't know what is going on OR the basis of their decisions?

And third, this is a very extreme authoritarian view that is not supported by open meetings and records laws, or even fundamental democratic principles.

The public bodies are appointed/approved by the elected reps

And luckily we don’t live in a full democracy. We live in a representative republic

I just assumed any publicly owned property would have to be offered to the public, a call for offers, rfp or something. Guess not.

How long would you like to have this information so you can respond? A week a month ? Most the council feels very informed on the issues that they vote on weekly.

The city buys and sells property (lots of time through various trusts and authority’s ) all the time

How long would you like to have this information so you can respond? A week a month ? Most the council feels very informed on the issues that they vote on weekly.

I mentioned upthread that I talked to 2 separate city council members and neither could even remember several of the broad points shared in these small meetings, which is why my initial article was vague on the Karchmer issue. They are never given anything in writing.

They were initially breifed on 5/15. Why couldn't that have been done in a city council meeting? Everyone is there including Couch. In that way, there is recorded info that goes into the minutes so everyone is clear on what was discussed.

I'll answer my own question: It absolutely could and should have been discussed in a city council meeting. And if I had known about that 5/15 meeting so I could do an open records request, the city would have been compelled to answer.

Just imagine if every property sale had to be voted on by the general public. Would anything get done? No.

Just imagine if every property sale had to be voted on by the general public. Would anything get done? No.

but there is a huge difference between having to inform the public in a an open forum and having to have the public vote on it...

Well you literally did call me out. I cannot see how my comments are dismissive in the least. My point was, if the City Manager and company think they are doing "God's work" and that they believe that this is the BEST set of circumstances for our city, there is no reason to be secretive about any of this. As I stated in my earlier comments, this is "a major public asset"..

I apologize.

It seems we actually are in agreement but the second paragraph of your post was being used to further a contrary view.

Just imagine if every property sale had to be voted on by the general public. Would anything get done? No.

No, you just put out a call for offers, just like the Cotter Tower did, and then council votes to accept the best one. No one said anything about a public vote.

The city buys and sells property (lots of time through various trusts and authority’s ) all the time

And there are very specific guidelines that have to be followed depending on what it is, which board/trust is charged with oversight, etc. And often, there are RFP's issued, and calls for bids, etc. Same with with contracts to be awarded.

Just wanted to be clear that even if they buy and sell 'all the time' they still have to abide by strict rules and regulations.


I'm still not clear how the city is able to set a $22.5MM pricetag without an independent appraisal.

IMO, this is a hugely important issue, so much so I have spent hundreds of hours over the years researching and documenting.

The discussion around this is incredibly important and this is the only place in OKC where it is really taking place.

The public bodies are appointed/approved by the elected reps

And luckily we don’t live in a full democracy. We live in a representative republic

And even in a representative republic the ideas you are putting forth are extremely authoritarian and violate many fundamental democratic principles, chiefly the right of the public to understand and participate in public decisions.

IMO, this is a hugely important issue, so much so I have spent hundreds of hours over the years researching and documenting.

The discussion around this is incredibly important and this is the only place in OKC where it is really taking place.

I appreciate the work you are doing and putting in. Just because I disagree on this one, to an extent, don't mistake it for apathy. It is an issue. Maybe not on this specific transaction, but there have been and will be) others that I questioned. So yes, it is important, and I am glad we have a place like this, and a person like you doing all of this due diligence for us!

I appreciate the work you are doing and putting in. Just because I disagree on this one, to an extent, don't mistake it for apathy. It is an issue. Maybe not on this specific transaction, but there have been and will be) others that I questioned. So yes, it is important, and I am glad we have a place like this, and a person like you doing all of this due diligence for us!

And even though I am very passionate about this, I am not trying to shout down other points of view.

Remember that only about 1% of the people who read this site bother to register and a far smaller number than that actually post.

So, I often feel compelled to respond when I believe something is incorrect or misguided because I don't want it to be assumed that a lack of response was agreement or capitulation.


We get tons and tons of people reading. I know this not only from the site metrics (page views, unique visits, etc.) but because I hear about it all the time from people in the community. And many in positions of power and influence.

If I really want to know if someone in particular is reading, all I have to do is post something that is not entirely correct, and I'll almost always hear about it from the related party. :)


I have also been told more than once that it matters what gets written and discussed here and in and surrounding the Oklahoman. People in the business and civic community don't really care about local news or even the Journal Record. But they know people come here and see a lot of things and therefore it's important to be fair and to get things right.

It's also important to have open discussions because it litterally doesn't happen anywhere else in OKC.

IMO, this is a hugely important issue, so much so I have spent hundreds of hours over the years researching and documenting.

The discussion around this is incredibly important and this is the only place in OKC where it is really taking place.
Largely because despite your claims and inuendo of wrong doing OKC largely functions the same as thousands of other cities around the country


And even in a representative republic the ideas you are putting forth are extremely authoritarian and violate many fundamental democratic principles, chiefly the right of the public to understand and participate in public decisions.

In what way? The public can understand the process it is not hidden

Largely because despite your claims and inuendo of wrong doing OKC largely functions the same as thousands of other cities around the country


Everyone else does it, so it must be right???? that's really the argument you are going to use?

OKC largely functions the same as thousands of other cities around the country

You're going to have to prove that.

You are the one claiming impropriety. So the burden is completely on you

You are the one claiming impropriety. So the burden is completely on you

Actually, I've specifically said what I believe the issues to be supported by tons of research and expert opinion.

Now comes sweeping rebuttal that can't be supported in any way.

You are the one claiming impropriety. So the burden is completely on you

Ha, have you not read everything hes posted in this thread? Or do you only say things that a Chamber representative would say? Everything about this has been in the dark and then all of a sudden it has to be rushed through, giving this deal no light of the day, effectively.

Actually, I've specifically said what I believe the issues to be supported by tons of research and expert opinion.

Now comes sweeping rebuttal that can't be supported in any way.


All the expert opinion that you refuse to source or link to. Yeah sure

All the expert opinion that you refuse to source or link to. Yeah sure

Not true but it's clear real debate and understanding is not the goal here.

Not true but it's clear real debate and understanding is not the goal here.

Absolute has been. What is the case your da opinion refers to?

I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything because you aren't interested in listening.

I've got better things to do with my time.

I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything because you aren't interested in listening.

I've got better things to do with my time.

So again refuse to source your arguement that is the basis of your claim that what Okc is doing is inappropriate

So again refuse to source your arguement that is the basis of your claim that what Okc is doing is inappropriate

I'm fine with you believing that.