What is Steve's agenda here besides getting clicks to his column? Does he hate the streetcar? Does he hate the streetcar supporters? Does he hate Urban Pioneer? Why use all the super secret innuendo? If you have a good story, run it.

He did say in this chat that Ed Shadid "Cares. A lot." So he seems to have a special fondness for him as well.

I think to paint Ed as being anti-MAPS is a vast mischaracterization. Ed would be the biggest champion the inner city could ever have, he just wants to see MAPS go in a different, perhaps more progressive direction. I think he gets the notion that MAPS is a dynamic, changing proposition based on the significant changes we have already seen.

It was not Ed who shorted the bike trails, got fuzzy on senior centers, pushed the streetcar back, and moved the convention center up. For the record, I am a personal friend of Ed, but I am also deeply committed to the streetcar project. It's not that downtown won't continue to grow without it, but if we can just make this streetcar happen ASAP, that will be the change impetus here. Then it won't be OKC, always 10 years behind Austin.

Charlotte, Portland, and Austin all have dynamically seized a moment in its recent past that propelled those cities to greatness. OKC doesn't appreciate from organic growth like Austin or Portland, where those cities greatness slowly bubbled from an entrenched culture that was more urbane and exploded once they became large cities. Charlotte is our destiny. OKC is a city that grows in leaps and bounds or not at all, and everyone knows our history of boom and bust. The streetcar will be that cataclysmic transit event. It will be a beacon that will in turn make Okies demand better public transit for all.

In that sense, it is not worth preventing this beacon system from developing to fight a larger battle for transit for all. Many of the same people devoted to the streetcar also care about bus service and have great ideas for that, like instituting a logical grid system, for example. The people who run this city are civil servants, not dictatorial visionaries, and all things are a compromise. Ed has done a fantastic job of working WITH people, not AGAINST them. I hate to see his stances and character blown out of proportion by melodramatic news headlines.

That said, I've obviously been out of the insider loop for a while. These thoughts just touch the surface, but hopefully can add some rational middle ground to this discussion. This is why we have elections, to see these things unfold over time, and get to the bottom of these things.

For the record, Ed touched home with me regarding the zoo. For us to have a dedicated zoo tax, but not a dedicated funding stream of any kind for transit, is absurd. He did come off that big-time and didn't even play that card as strongly as I would have. The zoo should have to figure out where its budget is coming from each year like every other city entity - but for some reason, because people like koalas, the zoo is above all else.

MAPS funding can only legally or logistically be applied to capital expenditures. Bus service is low-capital, heavy-operating, and even heavier-maintenance. Maintenance however is factored over years, not one time. If we had to have a vote every time a bus broke down, transit would be even worse off than it is now.

Also just to be fair to the other side, I was in Pittsburgh the other weekend and saw the sexiest buses I've ever seen in the U.S. The Port Authority there has model bus service. Just merely taking over some aspects of bus service from advertising agencies is a very small thing a city can do to say it cares about transit for all.

By the way I apologize for all the typos, I'm writing on my iPad.

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged. And when it happens, you often attack the person doing the questioning or challenging as you've done with these latest threads. What's funny is how now I'm being painted as a pro-Shadid when we've been attacked in the past as being anti-Shadid. I've had my integrity attacked before by those who didn't like my questions or challenges - former County Commissioner Brent Rinehart (indicted, convicted of campaign finance violations as a result of my questioning), Councilman Frosty Peak, the late Bricktown developer Jim Brewer, top executives at a couple of major energy companies, etc, etc. Funny how it all works out in the end.
I will note that Soonerguru seemed to question my journalism education based on his incorrect conclusion that I don't post multiple images with various stories when such images are available, and then somehow concluded the 100 emails being withheld by Gov. Mary Fallin conceal some sort of relationship with The OKlahoman, even though it was The Oklahoman that started and continued and continues to wage this fight to let the public see these emails. Consider all that as Soonerguru reflects on my work ....

Time has a way of healing all wounds, but your memory of the first MAPS is a bit off.

It was, in many ways, an organizational disaster. It went way over budget and schedules were missed. Lawsuits were filed over the materials used for the library. The canal was shortened -- and didn't connect to the river as promised. The arena went over budget. Schedules were missed. The voters had to be asked to spend more money.

And yet, it turned out great for our city. People today -- some of whom even voted against it -- acknowledge it as a success, despite the bumps and bruises. And it was a success, a monumental success that started the momentum for OKC's emergence as a big-league city, something it is now recognized for internationally.

So forgive me, but as a supporter of the streetcar, one of the MAPS 3 projects, I do NOT have a problem with tough questions. Bring 'em on. What I have a problem with is someone like you calling it a pet project. Sorry, Charlie, but it was on the slate of MAPS projects voted for by the citizens, and polling showed it to be one of only three or four the public really even wanted, so it is most certainly NOT a pet project.

As the one who wrote the book on MAPS, covered it first hand:
- The arena did not go over budget.
- The canal was NOT shortened - it was actually built slightly longer than first presented during the campaign. And there was never a promise to completely link the canal to the river - that was always impossible due to the steep drop in elevation.
- The library materials did end up in litigation.
- Schedules did fall behind.
- The budget did go over and the tax was extended for six months.
- The structure of the first MAPS ballot, provisions for funding of operations and maintenance, were far more detailed than for MAPS 3, which basically consisted of voters approving a blank check of $777 million to be spent on "capital improvements" with just a resolution (which can be scrapped at any time with five votes) giving a summary of which projects were to be funded.

Spartan - I agree with the basic premise of this and Ed's statement regarding the zoo having dedicated funding and none for transit.

BUT - I think it is counter productive to take the discussion into the realm of insinuations about the most transparent of the MAPS3 subcommittees. I simply wonder what his actual goal is and would prefer it to be openly stated. He would probably find there is widespread support for the eventual goal but he needs to modify his method to accept the unwritten contract between the voters and city leadership regarding MAPS.

Ed has done a fantastic job of working WITH people, not AGAINST them.

That said, I've obviously been out of the insider loop for a while.

This is simply not true. Ed has done a HORRIBLE job "working with people."

And yes, you have been out of the loop. (At least the transit volunteer one.)

I can't tell you how many people have reached out their hands and had them bitten. Ed has brought nothing but acrimony to the implementation of the voter's will.

If he has a remote chance of being elected Mayor, we are on our way to Tulsaville... Divisiveness and acrimony.

I'm not saying there aren't problems. The absence of planners where planning is needed instead of engineers is the obvious one. But he has done nothing to help resolve those issues.

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged.

You keep saying this about MAPS 3 Streetcar/Transit advocates. What specific beliefs and assumptions are you talking about?

I am and always have been willing to listen to others and change my views if I'm proven wrong or think somebody has a better path. All I want, and I think most want, is for streetcar, hub, rail infrastructure to be built in the best way possible as generally described in the campaign voters voted on.

Shadid has the extraordinary position of helping craft the next MAPS or GO bond docket to get the funding to resolve the broader transit issues at hand.

Having sensitivity to his desire to change the purpose of these current funds should be totally understandable.

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged.

For it to be a legitimate challenge there needs to be a basis for the challenge. If you have such a basis, why not state it rather than insinuating? I really think you are better than that Steve. I look forward to your columns and think you are a great asset to people that care to be informed about what our city government is doing. But I honestly think you are off base on this one in the absence of any concrete basis for your "challenge".

As the one who wrote the book on MAPS, covered it first hand:
- The arena did not go over budget.
- The canal was NOT shortened - it was actually built slightly longer than first presented during the campaign. And there was never a promise to completely link the canal to the river - that was always impossible due to the steep drop in elevation.
- The library materials did end up in litigation.
- Schedules did fall behind.
- The budget did go over and the tax was extended for six months.
- The structure of the first MAPS ballot, provisions for funding of operations and maintenance, were far more detailed than for MAPS 3, which basically consisted of voters approving a blank check of $777 million to be spent on "capital improvements" with just a resolution (which can be scrapped at any time with five votes) giving a summary of which projects were to be funded.

The arena did not go over budget, but the earlier projects did, and the arena was the focal point of Mayor Humphreys' "finish MAPS right."

I hate to see my friends arguing this vociferously. I will just say that the streetcar process was by far the most transparent of the MAPS projects, and that Ed Shadid is at times the only councilman we have that one would expect in a city of 600,000 - and that takes courage. The only way we'll descend into the Tulsa pit is if we can not find a way for these two very good things to coexist. But I think we can, coexistence has long been one of OKC's strengths.

Some of you are simply proving my point... you definitely don't appear to like to see your beliefs and assumptions challenged. And when it happens, you often attack the person doing the questioning or challenging as you've done with these latest threads. What's funny is how now I'm being painted as a pro-Shadid when we've been attacked in the past as being anti-Shadid. I've had my integrity attacked before by those who didn't like my questions or challenges - former County Commissioner Brent Rinehart (indicted, convicted of campaign finance violations as a result of my questioning), Councilman Frosty Peak, the late Bricktown developer Jim Brewer, top executives at a couple of major energy companies, etc, etc. Funny how it all works out in the end.
I will note that Soonerguru seemed to question my journalism education based on his incorrect conclusion that I don't post multiple images with various stories when such images are available, and then somehow concluded the 100 emails being withheld by Gov. Mary Fallin conceal some sort of relationship with The OKlahoman, even though it was The Oklahoman that started and continued and continues to wage this fight to let the public see these emails. Consider all that as Soonerguru reflects on my work ....

Steve, would it be bad for MAPS money to be put into the bus system, despite voters voting for MAPS3 streetcar.

The problem here is that nobody voted for anything but $777 million that can be used in whatever way five members of the city council see fit. You've already seen $30 million diverted from the convention center "budget" listed on the resolution (again, something not listed on the MAPS 3 ballot and can be overturned by 5 votes). You've seen the sidewalk and trails project cut back significantly. You've seen some serious doubts emerge with the wellness centers. And now you're seeing the bubbling up of questions about the streetcar system.
As an aside, how many of you have read the resolution? Read it here: http://www.okc.gov/maps3/resolution.pdf

Does rail based transit apply to rubber tyred buses Steve?!?

It doesn't call for a streetcar system at all - only rail based transit in the inner-city and/or elsewhere in the city.

That's false...the resolution reads:

"A new rail-based STREETCAR SYSTEM..."

I hate to see my friends arguing this vociferously. I will just say that the streetcar process was by far the most transparent of the MAPS projects, and that Ed Shadid is at times the only councilman we have that one would expect in a city of 600,000 - and that takes courage. The only way we'll descend into the Tulsa pit is if we can not find a way for these two very good things to coexist. But I think we can, coexistence has long been one of OKC's strengths.

I agree Nick. But we need more than coexistence to continue to make the positive change this city is experiencing.

I worked on Ed's campaign. It went way beyond knocking doors. I had my entire small staff working for several weeks on his campaign at my expense. We created many of the ads, wrote copy, designed art, and then did all the normal stuff; walking doors and making phone calls.

The reason I supported Ed so excitedly is because he was such a stark contrast to the "status quo" ie Swinton. He came across as a Progressive, of which I am proudly one.

But after the election it turned into nothing but the coexistent conversation you describe. Lets talk about everything and accomplish nothing. And for so many people, that conversation has been enough. There has been such a "vacuum" of intelligent thinking and modern progressive discussion in the past, he is filling entire auditoriums with people who have been craving this discussion.

But conversation doesn't get you votes on the horseshoe. Conversation alone is not a strategy for implementation. To be a "real leader" that racks up "wins", you have to build relationships, develop friends, gain 5 other votes.

Shadid has undoubtedly "elevated" the conversation. And that is a huge thing. He has built consensus where there was little consensus. If we had had the level of interest that he has created in public transit during the formation of the MAPS 3 docket, I would wager you would see a much bigger and broader investment. Instead of focussing this new consensus he has generated towards a comprehensive, future, goal, he's decided to cast doubt and chip away at an already hard fought initiative. And he's alienating many of his friends and supporters in the process.

Shadid has lost my confidence because he has proven himself to not be a smart political leader. He happens to be someone we elected because we liked what he had to say. But he does not have the political skills or discipline to actually orient his public conversations into constructive resolutions.

I say that with the exception of the City's equality stance. That was an early victory and has my profound respect.

But everything and everybody seems to be "fair game". There is no loyalty to anyone or anything. Between not having those basic reassurances of respect and loyalty, there is no foundation from which to develop political commitments from others to obtain your goals. You don't have to "sell yourself" to be a successful politician. But typical success in policy involves both consensus building and having the friends to get you the votes at the end of the day.

With all that said, that's quite a bit of disclosure on my part. My support of Ed in the past and my concerns about his potential mayorship go far beyond the streetcar and MAPS projects.

I'm proud of this city. I'm proud of where its going. I look up the road to Tulsa and see the result of good intentions gone bad. They have plenty of conversations though!

I think Ed has the best of intentions. But he needs to serve a few full terms, gain some political skills, rebuild some relationships, win some votes, and help restore a balance between Planning, Public Works, and the City Manager. Doing those things as a Councilman.

He has profound opportunities at his leisure should he develop the discipline and patience to harness them. Short of defending MAPS 3 streetcar/transit, I'll take a Lackmeyer line. Sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the show.

That's false...the resolution reads:

"A new rail-based STREETCAR SYSTEM..."

In case this isn't clear enough for Ed and Steve:

http://gyazo.com/59cebcf6a93318d09e087974f2a61e6f.png?1364769028

Yep. You're right. I read the Oklahoman article from archives, linked to the resolution (after clearly reading the story - not mine - and not reading the resolution carefully enough)...
My bad. Irony. So right now, unless five council members say otherwise, it does need to be a rail based streetcar system. I am willing to acknowledge when I'm wrong, and in this case, damn right, it says that.
But again, it's not what voters voted for - it's a resolution that's binding as long as a majority of the city council sticks to it.
As an aside, I don't think anyone disputes that Shadid has been one of the most vocal dissident voices on the council in a very long time. And it's true - there are some others on the council who clearly don't like him.

To be mayor you have to have the respect and support of the people and of people who can ACTUALLY EFFECT CHANGE. It is doubtful that Shadid can muster more than vocal support from the more disenfranchised. He is great at being against things, but ineffective on bringing about actual change and growth. It's like being a consultant...very easy to see the problems, but very difficult to actually implement the changes in a positive way.

Yep. You're right. I read the Oklahoman article from archives, linked to the resolution (after clearly reading the story - not mine - and not reading the resolution carefully enough)...
My bad. Irony. So right now, unless five council members say otherwise, it does need to be a rail based streetcar system. I am willing to acknowledge when I'm wrong, and in this case, damn right, it says that.
But again, it's not what voters voted for - it's a resolution that's binding as long as a majority of the city council sticks to it.
As an aside, I don't think anyone disputes that Shadid has been one of the most vocal dissident voices on the council in a very long time. And it's true - there are some others on the council who clearly don't like him.

We shouldn't even be having this conversation though. Sure, you can lawyer your way around the wording and find a way to spend the money on anything. But the city DOES NOT want to kill MAPS. They want a Phase II for the convention center, perhaps more transit expansion (streetcar, buses, etc.), more sidewalks and trails, who knows what else. The city will not change this program for Shadid's sake. This shouldn't even be a conversation because we know it won't happen. So it's frustrating that this is even being brought up in such a huge way.

As an unrelated citizen, we were made aware of the process and I felt it was very transparent, especially contrasting to the convention center committee. This process did not start up overnight last month. There has been a lot of public involvement and input. The opportunity to discuss and feed input on the recommended route was there from the beginning. It may not have been huge grand events, but the meetings have definitely not been behind closed doors and curtains. It's frustrating to be this far along into the process to even talk about going back to square one. I can understand the frustration of the subcommittee members. It might be similar to being halfway into a heavy article, you've been doing your diligent research and interviews, carefully piecing together a story and being very close to finalizing it, and a new boss came in and said to start over because your research probably wasn't done correctly. I really don't think you'll find the smoking gun you are looking for because I don't think one exists, but you are just seeing the frustration this recent Shadidism is generating.

QUOTE: "It might be similar to being halfway into a heavy article, you've been doing your diligent research and interviews, carefully piecing together a story and being very close to finalizing it, and a new boss came in and said to start over because your research probably wasn't done correctly."

Um, this happens quite a bit in my business....

I'm sure it's frustrating and insulting for someone who has had no involvement in that process, come in and tell you why you are wrong?

I don't mind if someone challenges and questions the work I've done to ensure it's the best it can be

I think there's a difference between challenging it with an open mind, and challenging it with a pre-conceived argument. Shadid is arguing because in his mind, what he knows is better.

Had this come from anyone else, I don't think there'd be as much reaction. He's arguing not because he thinks the route is wrong, it's because he has to prove that he knows better than everyone else.

The silly thing about this whole argument is that the only thing pro-streetcar people are supporting is our desire to have something built we believed we were voting for. If someone started a campaign to use the park money for something other than a park, I would vociferously oppose that as well. I even support the right of those who voted for the convention center to have their convention center, despite the fact that I have no interest in it. Tell me you're moving funds from the CC to build an amphitheater or football stadium and I would tell you it's not fair to the voters to do so. Every subcommittee member was a voter first and it's not always fair to assume which hat I'm wearing. Other than the fact that I want a streetcar and will fight vocally to have what I thought I was voting for, I feel pretty flexible. Even our suggested route is laden with compromise, and the change I didn't support initially was examined at the request of Coucilman Shadid. But regardless, at this point the route is in the hands of engineers and consultants, has had an initial fresh eyes examination, with more planned, as well as public meetings. I'm not feeling very intransigent about anything but the fact that it needs to be built, it needs to be legible and it needs to be something our citizens will be proud of, to be honest.

As the one who wrote the book on MAPS, covered it first hand:
- The arena did not go over budget.
- The canal was NOT shortened - it was actually built slightly longer than first presented during the campaign. And there was never a promise to completely link the canal to the river - that was always impossible due to the steep drop in elevation.
- The library materials did end up in litigation.
- Schedules did fall behind.
- The budget did go over and the tax was extended for six months.
- The structure of the first MAPS ballot, provisions for funding of operations and maintenance, were far more detailed than for MAPS 3, which basically consisted of voters approving a blank check of $777 million to be spent on "capital improvements" with just a resolution (which can be scrapped at any time with five votes) giving a summary of which projects were to be funded.

Fair enough on the first points. This was from memory. I think the issue with the canal was people thought it was going to link to the river -- at least that's how it was initially billed.

Regarding the arena, I thought the budget for that was the reason for the "Finish MAPS Right" campaign. If not that, what was it that required more money? The ballpark?

I'm not attacking you, Steve, I'm questioning why, in your very public forum, you diminish the angst about Shadid as streetcar advocates not enjoying having their beliefs and assumptions questioned, when there is actually genuine concern that Shadid wishes to derail the streetcar project to fund other initiatives, such as the Adventure Line and / or additional buses.

Dr. Ed Shadid is holding a get together at the Belle Isle Library, Sunday April 7th at 4pm. Those interested in a good, open and honest discussion should attend.

This is an opportunity to ask Dr. Shadid about his thoughts and beliefs as well as an chance to discuss potential solutions to topics including but not limited to those discussed in this thread.

The problem here is that nobody voted for anything but $777 million that can be used in whatever way five members of the city council see fit. You've already seen $30 million diverted from the convention center "budget" listed on the resolution (again, something not listed on the MAPS 3 ballot and can be overturned by 5 votes). You've seen the sidewalk and trails project cut back significantly. You've seen some serious doubts emerge with the wellness centers. And now you're seeing the bubbling up of questions about the streetcar system.
As an aside, how many of you have read the resolution? Read it here: http://www.okc.gov/maps3/resolution.pdf

This is a very technical argument. Some would say, borne of sophistry. You're being coy and while you are technically correct, you are dismissing the political fallout from the voters who voted in good faith for the slate of projects advertised. For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge this relationship between OKC and its citizens. Bizarre. You are very stubborn. Also, you like to act like you're smarter than everyone else, drop hints about things dripping with innuendo, and lord it over everyone that you have inside information. Tiring.

Dr. Ed Shadid is holding a get together at the Belle Isle Library, Sunday April 7th at 4pm. Those interested in a good, open and honest discussion should attend.

This is an opportunity to ask Dr. Shadid about his thoughts and beliefs as well as an chance to discuss potential solutions to topics including but not limited to those discussed in this thread.

Ed Shadid is a public official. Why should we have to go to a library to find out his position on the streetcar? Truly bizarre. He cannot even publicly state what it is? Do you know what it is? Perplexing.

In case this isn't clear enough for Ed and Steve:

http://gyazo.com/59cebcf6a93318d09e087974f2a61e6f.png?1364769028

Can I make this my avatar? It's shocking that Steve did not know this.

I don't mind if someone challenges and questions the work I've done to ensure it's the best it can be

Is that right? Then why do you say you are being attacked?

Sooner, you crack me up....

Sooner, you crack me up....

I admit, my tongue was a bit in cheek.

Welcome to being a 'Rock Star' Steve.

For some reason, Steve has implied some sort of impropriety on behalf of the MAPS Streetcar Subcommittee for a long time. He has, to date, provided no substantive reporting suggesting that the committee has been anything but open and transparent. Similarly, Ed Shadid has seemingly morphed his position toward suggesting some sort of impropriety on behalf of the Streetcar subcommittee. He dresses this up under the term "process," a word that has become his euphemism for "I wasn't a part of it therefore it was probably corrupt."

For Steve to act like, "Who, me? What are you talking about?" while he continues to drop these little nuggets is a bit disingenuous. He turns into a prosecutor when he says he "gets suspicious" when MAPS board members don't take criticism well.

You know, I have observed human behavior for a long time, and people generally don't take well to being second-guessed and implicated under a cloud of a reporter's unexplained "suspicion." Neither would Steve, for that matter.

Hey, Steve, I have some information I'm following about you. I've heard it from several sources. I'm not sure it's true, but I'm following up on some leads. May be big. I'll keep you posted. Tune into my blog next week for some possible details.

For some reason, Steve has implied some sort of impropriety on behalf of the MAPS Streetcar Subcommittee for a long time. He has, to date, provided no substantive reporting suggesting that the committee has been anything but open and transparent. Similarly, Ed Shadid has seemingly morphed his position toward some sort of impropriety.

For Steve to act like, "Who, me? What are you talking about?" while he continues to drop these little suggestions is a bit disingenuous. He turns into a prosecutor when he says he "gets suspicious" when MAPS board members don't take criticism well.

You know, I have observed human behavior for a long time, and people generally don't take well to being second-guessed. Neither does Steve, for that matter.

I've implied no sort of impropriety on behalf of the MAPS streetcar subcommittee. I've suggested that attacks are launched by people in this thread (not the committee) when their beliefs or assumptions are challenged. You've pretty much done that... again, I love the part about you denying you've attacked me in any way. Seriously - I laughed when I read it. God bless ya Sooner - that's quite a perspective you have.

I've implied no sort of impropriety on behalf of the MAPS streetcar subcommittee. I've suggested that attacks are launched by people in this thread (not the committee) when their beliefs or assumptions are challenged. You've pretty much done that... again, I love the part about you denying you've attacked me in any way. Seriously - I laughed when I read it. God bless ya Sooner - that's quite a perspective you have.

Please provide an example of the attack. I have asked why you are diminishing the concerns of the subcommittee about Shadid as people merely not wanting their assumptions questioned. I have been specific. And yet you continue to ignore it. Why will you not address this? Why, in print, are you suggesting that the streetcar people are a bunch of puny individuals who cannot take criticism? Why are you not letting the public know what Shadid has discussed doing with the streetcar funding? Is that not news?

Ed Shadid is a public official. Why should we have to go to a library to find out his position on the streetcar? Truly bizarre. He cannot even publicly state what it is? Do you know what it is? Perplexing.

It's their response to this thread running out of their control.

As someone on the committee, I don't even know the Councillor's current position on streetcar matters. It changes like a weathervane in the Oklahoma wind.

Why do I need to go to Belle Isle Library to find this out?

Steve do you know the Councillor's current position?

It's their response to this thread running out of their control.

As someone on the committee, I don't even know the Councillor's current position on streetcar matters. It changes like a weathervane in the Oklahoma wind.

Why do I need to go to Belle Isle Library to find this out?

Steve do you know the Councillor's current position?

Not really.... he seems to be favoring re-examining how much is spent on streetcars vs. bus transit, and whether streetcar is the best system. Hoping William Crum covers this soon.
Sooner, I think your posts speak for themselves.

I also don't think we've heard everything there is to hear about the costs of a convention center hotel, garage, prospects for funding of the park or wellness centers. But you folks don't seem to have a problem with questioning of those issues, right?
;)

Not really.... he seems to be favoring re-examining how much is spent on streetcars vs. bus transit, and whether streetcar is the best system. Hoping William Crum covers this soon.
Sooner, I think your posts speak for themselves.

Again, we should not even be having this discussion: the resolution clearly states rail based streetcar.

If he wants to start a petition on getting improved bus transit, I'm 100% behind him -- but not at the expense of the streetcar which is clearly stated, cut and dry.

Not really.... he seems to be favoring re-examining how much is spent on streetcars vs. bus transit, and whether streetcar is the best system. Hoping William Crum covers this soon.
Sooner, I think your posts speak for themselves.

My posts may speak for themselves, but they don't speak for you. So I ask, for the umpteenth time, why are you diminishing the concerns of the streetcar advocates with Shadid's plans for the streetcar? This isn't about hurt feelings, or paranoia, or an unwillingness to accept criticism. It's about legitimate concerns.

You have finally addressed, on here, what people are concerned about. Namely: Shadid seems to be suggesting moving money from the streetcar, which was voted for by the citizens, toward something else. Please don't in the future suggest this is anything other than that, and please don't equate me pointing that out as an attack, because it is not. It is an entirely reasonable question.

To add, I find it disappointing that while you were maligning streetcar advocates in your chat Friday, you still are not certain exactly what Councilman Shadid's position on the streetcar is, though you now admit he "seems to be favoring re-examining how much is spent on streetcars vs. bus transit..."

It's rather amazing that you would slag the streetcar camp without even mentioning this point to the readers of your Friday chat.

And my point is: the time to have determined whether streetcar or bus system is best was preMAPS 3. I assume Councilor Shadid was a registered voter. He had the opportunity to go to the Council and speak as a citizen, to speak to the mayor, post his opinion in the DOK and/or Gazette, or even use public forums like OKC Talk. IIRC, he didn't even vote in the MAPS 3 election. To me, these actions, or lack thereof, mean he abdicated his right as a citizen to express his opinion on MAPS 3. He should turn his attention to MAPS IV or work to create new funding sources for transit. Those of us who did vote would like to see our right as citizens respected. To go against the expressed will of the citizenry is not acceptable in our system of government. MAPS is a plebiscite ballot and thus shouldn't be subject to representative democracy.

I like Ed Shadid if for no other reason his influence on re-shaping the discussion of the Western Avenue project from simply throwing in some new sidewalks to making it truly pedestrian friendly. That being said, his approach to MAPS bothers me a bit. It is great that someone is pointing out the problems in how MAPS3 was written. No funding for park maintenance? Not enough money for sidewalks because, oops, we forgot how big sidewalks need to be! No money for convention center hotel. Etc. etc. Without Shadid these issues might not even be publicly discussed.

That being said, calling it "fatally flawed" is a problem. MAPS3 exists. It was passed. Now what? If I go to my boss and explain a problem with a project, he wants to know how I can fix it and make the project happen. If I just say, over and over again, "There is a problem! The project cannot be completed," my boss will not be impressed. He wants results. The voters want results. The voters want their MAPS3 projects. Yes there were serious problems with MAPS3, but we still want our stuff. How are you going to overcome the problems and still deliver? That is real leadership.

I also don't think we've heard everything there is to hear about the costs of a convention center hotel, garage, prospects for funding of the park or wellness centers. But you folks don't seem to have a problem with questioning of those issues, right?
;)

Only to the extent that funding for operation and maintenance needs to be identified or the choice of locations needs to be revisted, not to cancel them. I can only think of one person by name on OKCTalk that wants to cancel the convention center (an ardent Shadid supporter by the way), everyone else pretty much just wants the location moved - even if the math presented by the Chamber doesn't add up. Heck, we are still going forward with the AICCM project and that math is screwy 8 ways from Sunday.

I also don't think we've heard everything there is to hear about the costs of a convention center hotel, garage, prospects for funding of the park or wellness centers. But you folks don't seem to have a problem with questioning of those issues, right?
;)

Is there any MAPS project, besides the Chesapeake Arena, that is self-supporting? I'm sitting here trying to think of one. Haven't we always argued that it is the private investment/economic development benefits, as well as quality of life and civic pride benefits that make the expenditures on all of these worthwhile?

I don't think we should look at any of these projects in a vacuum.

Wow, I just read all 5 pages of this very interesting thread and must say I've never seen such a consensus among all posters on a topic as this. Sure, there are the rare one or two posts supporting Councilman Shadid's views/actions but the vast majority here are without question against. I appreciate his viewpoint for improving the urban landscape of OKC but as a politician you have to be able to work with others to achieve progress -- a characteristic I am fairly certain Mr. Shadid is incapable of.

I won't get too deep into the soonerguru/Steve spat but I will say one thing is clear -- the citizens of OKC voted for the streetcar project and that vote cannot be overlooked or so easily dismissed. Sure, 5 votes on the council can change the direction of projects, but give me one example where this has happened on a project the size of the streetcar, because I find it hard to believe anyone currently sitting on the council (save for Councilman Shadid) would risk their political career by so blatantly going against the majority vote of the city.

With all of that being said, I will have to say the one line from this entire thread that made me laugh was this one:



Cornett reminds me of a weasel

Mayor Cornett has been without a doubt a great champion of OKC and, while not perfect (what politician is), I feel he has done a fine job of representing and selling our city both domestically and abroad. OKC could certainly do much worse.

Is there any MAPS project, besides the Chesapeake Arena, that is self-supporting? I'm sitting here trying to think of one. Haven't we always argued that it is the private investment/economic development benefits, as well as quality of life and civic pride benefits that make the expenditures on all of these worthwhile?

I don't think we should look at any of these projects in a vacuum.

Te original MAPS came with plans for operations and maintenance, most notably the use tax fund. So yes, MAPS 3 was done VERY DIFFERENTLY with far less planning than MAPS when it came to this.

Early warning to Steve - Shadid is going to replace "mystery tower' in your weekly chat session. Bring your Magic 8 ball. :)

Yep. You're right. I read the Oklahoman article from archives, linked to the resolution (after clearly reading the story - not mine - and not reading the resolution carefully enough)...
My bad. Irony. So right now, unless five council members say otherwise, it does need to be a rail based streetcar system. I am willing to acknowledge when I'm wrong, and in this case, damn right, it says that.

Not so fast. You don't get off that easy. Myself, and I'm sure many others here, normally respect the journalistic work you do. Your research is thorough and you're careful of what you write and report. But as far as the streetcar issue goes, you've lost journalistic credibility with me. As a respected reporter who many look to for better understanding on issues related to OKC development, you are subject to a higher standard of fact checking prior to making public statements and assertions on the issues you cover than the average citizen posting to this forum. The Council resolution detailing the project intent of MAPS 3 has been publicly available and reported on since 2009. The fact that you failed to due your normal due diligence in reviewing the resolution language, which by the way requires very little "careful" review...the wording is clear to see and easy to understand, prior to making such a huge mistatement of fact indicates to me that you have lost objectivity with regard to this issue and have developed a personal bias against the streetcar project and those who support it.

Nope. No personal bias against the streetcar project at all. And if you're going to judge me on one post made over the weekend while my eyes were a bit bleary from doing hours of book research, well, whatever. I'm sticking with my original observation ... folks in this thread don't like to be questioned or challenged. The twist of this whole thread pretty much proves it - I questioned whether folks in this thread are hostile to those who question or challenge them, and the knives came out.

The problem here is that nobody voted for anything but $777 million that can be used in whatever way five members of the city council see fit. You've already seen $30 million diverted from the convention center "budget" listed on the resolution (again, something not listed on the MAPS 3 ballot and can be overturned by 5 votes). You've seen the sidewalk and trails project cut back significantly. You've seen some serious doubts emerge with the wellness centers. And now you're seeing the bubbling up of questions about the streetcar system.
As an aside, how many of you have read the resolution? Read it here: http://www.okc.gov/maps3/resolution.pdf

so disingenuous and void of any context

I agree - there is no context because the truth is people voted to give the city council $777 million - without context of any sort on the ballot. Have you checked into the positions of the two challengers for Ward 7 and Ward 1 on this issue? And really, where is the money going to come from to operate and maintain the park and the streetcar system when they're up and running and we go into a down cycle on sales tax collections? Where is money going to come from to subsidize a convention center hotel. Just answer these questions. Or attack me for asking.

Steve, the Subcommittee is discussing at length parking garage revenues, Santa-Fe station space leases, advertising at Santa-Fe Station and at stops and on trains, and potentially fares.

THIS HAS GONE UNREPORTED

Shadid keeps insinuating that O&M is the reason we should kill streetcar or change everything in MAPS Transit because he proclaims some day we might take money away from bus operations. All whilst knowing that the Subcommittee is actively discussing O&M and mandated that our paid consultants tell us what our options are.

I know he knows because he was at some of these specific subcommittee meetings where O&M was discussed and he even chimed in! A far more respectful approach would be to acknowledge these discussions but simply say he still has concerns until the final report is in.

He has been DISENGENIOUS in omitting this information at his public forums and discussions. He didn't even acknowledge the existence of an oversight body.

And beyond Shadid and his bus motivated political strategy, the O&M discussion/strategization in transit has gone unreported and broadly unacknowledged allowing his arguments to erroneously gain some validity before the verdict is even in.

Just curious, where would O&M funds for an expanded bus system would come from?
Where does the current bus O&M funds come from?
Over the average expected lifetime which has a high O&M cost, buses or streetcars?

According to BrooklynRail, a streetcar has 39% of the O&M cost of a bus.
http://www.brooklynrail.net/images/new_brooklyn_streetcar/streetcar_vs_nyct_bus_operating_cost.pdf

I've implied no sort of impropriety on behalf of the MAPS streetcar subcommittee. I've suggested that attacks are launched by people in this thread (not the committee) when their beliefs or assumptions are challenged. You've pretty much done that... again, I love the part about you denying you've attacked me in any way. Seriously - I laughed when I read it. God bless ya Sooner - that's quite a perspective you have.

I've been out of the loop for just a few weeks and missed A LOT apparently. What was this "smoking gun"??

I agree - there is no context because the truth is people voted to give the city council $777 million - without context of any sort on the ballot. Have you checked into the positions of the two challengers for Ward 7 and Ward 1 on this issue? And really, where is the money going to come from to operate and maintain the park and the streetcar system when they're up and running and we go into a down cycle on sales tax collections? Where is money going to come from to subsidize a convention center hotel. Just answer these questions. Or attack me for asking.

the general fund

Has anyone figured out whether the general fund can support that much additional expenditure?

I've been out of the loop for just a few weeks and missed A LOT apparently. What was this "smoking gun"??

The smoking gun is this thread!
I asked questions, suggested folks in the transit thread don't like being questioned or challenged, and the feeding frenzy began!

Out of interest, how much are the current O&M expenses for the original MAPS projects and where does the funding currently come from?

Out of interest, how much are the current O&M expenses for the original MAPS projects and where does the funding currently come from?


Depends on which project:
The original MAPS Use Tax, revenues from canal boats provides for capital improvements to the canal and ballpark. The arena makes a profit, and it's my understanding that some of that money helps cover losses at the convention center. A foundation was set up to help on the Civic Center. State Fair Park is it's own operation. The library is the same story. The river I'm not certain of. The rubber tire trolleys... I have no idea anymore.