Undoubtedly you have been fair to me personally Steve.

Hoping none of my comments came across as personal. The "Ed situation" for me goes beyond MAPS 3 transit as explained in my earlier posts.

My concerns about him relate to political adeptness, leadership, and loyalty.

The Subcommittee is the day-to-day public process. We will strive to make the best possible investment for transit overall while honoring the intent of the MAPS 3 campaign and resolution. That is what the 10 people intend to do. The rest is up to the Mayor and Council that appointed us.

The questions I'm hearing, and I think it's probably best that Ed gets to ask them himself - which I hear he has offered to do with Sooner and Urban Pioneer and others - is whether the plan presented to voters was the best way to boost public transit, and whether a pure streetcar system without other improvements to overall transit is the best way to go. He has also asked similar questions about the convention center, and while it's difficult to find advocates for the convention center at OKC Talk, the chamber, though far more sophisticated and above personal insults (at least in public), pretty much was just as hostile. Look back at this thread - I've been attacked as being lame in my comments, having a lack of objectivity and professionalism, and so on and so forth, and sometimes by people who I would have hoped would know better. To accuse me of being against public transit, or light rail, also bewilders me. To put it into context - I asked some very annoying questions to Public Works about Project 180 implementation, but that does not mean I'm anti- Project 180.
Sooner, your anger at me and others confounds me.... and Jeff, you know I've been fair to you in my reporting. To those expressing support, thanks. I think I should be questioned - but the attacks make no sense.

Steve, I am not angry at you. I disagreed with the tone of your comment from the chat. I was surprised you didn't report what Ed is planning, and chose instead to pick on streetcar supporters. Don't confuse me pointing this out with being angry. Confused? Maybe.

You wield a lot of power through your keyboard. Your audience is large. No one likes being questioned, per se, but I still contend it was an oversimplification on your part to suggest that streetcar advocates cannot handle questions and having their assumptions challenged, especially in light of the fact that questions and assumption challenges have been par for the course for the project since its conception. As you've made clear, there is nothing about your chat comments you would change. You obviously feel like what you posted was 100% on the up and up and deserves no further clarification. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. I am not alone in perceiving your comments the way I did. I'll leave it at that.

Regarding the councilman, he sent me a private message indicating a discussion that I took to be a personal invitation. Then, it was posted as a quasi-public meeting advertised on OKCTalk. Clearly I misunderstood Ed's intentions and will not be able to attend. I am not a member of the subcommittee so I don't see how my attendance is relevant. I did ask Ed to clarify his position on the streetcar, something he has yet to do. It does seem odd to me that with multiple channels of communication available, Ed would call this strange meeting without publicly stating his plans. Perhaps they're not formed. I think he knows where I stand, because I have always been 100% honest with him about my opinions on the streetcar. I'm not sure how to take your interest in my private Facebook chat with the councilman.

I don't believe this is an attack.

BTW, typing as we speak from the Heartland Flyer. Wanted to experience the trip first hand from our sister city, Fort Worth's, Intermodal Hub.

MAPS 3 Transit isn't just streetcar. It's Santa Fe Station too and how the buses and other modes interface efficiently with streetcar.

Ed rarely ever mentions that.

The questions I'm hearing ... is whether the plan presented to voters was the best way to boost public transit, and whether a pure streetcar system without other improvements to overall transit is the best way to go.

The concern I'm hearing is should what people have already voted on be changed?

Many things are needed to improve public transit overall and no one improvement will do it all. The streetcar is but one, albeit important, step in that direction that had and continues to have strong public support. What other steps can be taken in addition? These might include:


improved transit funding (Sunday bus service, extended bus service hours?) in the FY2014 budget;
allocation of MAPS 3 contingency funds;
Next GO Bond vote;
MAPS IV
Regional Transit District tax; amongst others.

There are many other additional sources of funding and additional approaches to consider to improve public transit in the near, medium and long term. Clearly, public awareness and support of public transit is the greatest it's ever been in this city and region for a long time. That's not going away and this shouldn't be a zero-sum game.

Steve,

Respectfully, have you had the opportunity to ask Councilor Shadid if he has any plans to improve transit in OKC that don't involve poaching money from the MAPS streetcar budget? So far, he seems to be singularly obsessed with taking money from the streetcar. That is the only "solution" he seems to be proposing. Am I missing something else?

Obviously, we think the streetcar is the right first step to take. The buses so far have not been successful in OKC. I don't want to rehash all of the arguments -- and trust me -- they've all been made to Ed (who, until sometime last fall, seemed to agree with them).

But my question, and it's a serious one (no snark or sarcasm here): Does Shadid have any strategies to improve transit? What are his plans? Can these be shared with the public?

Short of the Facebook message -- which did not clarify his position -- I have very little insight into what Dr. Shadid is thinking or planning. I'm still having to get used to this because I thought I knew the guy quite well at one time.

Observations, responses to Sooner:
- Ed Shadid is one who seems to question everything and everyone. He isn't shy about ticking people off. Some see him as destructive, others see him as the only real challenge to the status quo. Is he out to make things better, or just tear things down? My observation: he is passionate about the city. But is he effective in how he goes about picking his battles? Is he capable of building consensus? Those are questions for others to answer.
- Poaching is a loaded term. I'm not aware of him making up his mind on all this, but he's certainly questioning it....
- I've never outright criticized transit advocates. That would be stupid. I observed that those who participate in the TRANSIT THREAD on OKC TALK are don't like to be questioned and challenged.
- Shadid brought in some folks seen as experts at a recent town hall meeting. They brought up some ideas and questions about the current transit proposal that Shadid is clearly pondering, and may go further with.
- Has the bus system been well managed? Folks at Metro Transit say privately that they're making nobody happy by trying to make everybody happy. Add in the question of whether union bus drivers help or hinder good public transit, and then look at the city's sprawl... well, heck, you can dice that up 20 different ways....
- You have a resolution that you're putting a lot of faith into ... I've been around long enough to know that resolution is a piece of paper that can be torn into shreds by five people.
- If Shadid has invited you to talk to him in person, even if it's in a group setting, why in the world wouldn't you say "yes"? Isn't part of the problem these days that people spend too much time online and not conversing person to person?

Observations:
- Ed Shadid is one who seems to question everything and everyone. He isn't shy about ticking people off. Some see him as destructive, others see him as the only real challenge to the status quo. Is he out to make things better, or just tear things down? My observation: he is passionate about the city. But is he effective in how he goes about picking his battles? Is he capable of building consensus? Those are questions for others to answer.
- Poaching is a loaded term. I'm not aware of him making up his mind on all this, but he's certainly questioning it....
- Shadid brought in some folks seen as experts at a recent town hall meeting. They brought up some ideas and questions about the current transit proposal that Shadid is clearly pondering, and may go further with.
- Has the bus system been well managed? Folks at Metro Transit say privately that they're making nobody happy by trying to make everybody happy. Add in the question of whether union bus drivers help or hinder good public transit, and then look at the city's sprawl... well, heck, you can dice that up 20 different ways....
- You have a resolution that you're putting a lot of faith into ... I've been around long enough to know that resolution is a piece of paper that can be torn into shreds by five people.

Thank you.

I met with Jarrett Walker "Ed's expert" privately for several hours. I'm actually am the one that initially put him in contact with Ed.

He seems to be a brilliant guy with bright, smart, and reasonable ideas regarding building a better bus system.

We also talked at length about the streetcar proposal. He also had some great ideas and differing perspectives on the project. I listened to him, debated with him, and the experience has definitely affected how I will positively advocate for the implementation of MAPS 3 streetcar and Hub.

I think that there are profound opportunities within MAPS to also improve the bus system should Ed or others exert meaningful leadership within council. I'd say look at those $25 million in contingency funds for the substation Ed!

If we come in under budget on the streetcar/hub and still meet our campaigned for and publicly pledged rail objectives, lets spend the rest on meaningful bus infrastructure. You won't find protest here.

Observations, responses to Sooner:

- Poaching is a loaded term. I'm not aware of him making up his mind on all this, but he's certainly questioning it....


OK. "Poaching" would be considered editorializing by AP. But in this context, he's "questioning" taking the money, so the meaning is the same. LOL.


I've been around long enough to know that resolution is a piece of paper that can be torn into shreds by five people.

Weird. Shadid said something very similar to this to me.


If Shadid has invited you to talk to him in person, even if it's in a group setting, why in the world wouldn't you say "yes"? Isn't part of the problem these days that people spend too much time online and not conversing person to person?

Thank you for your concern. I've discussed this with Ed endlessly. I told him I'm willing to talk, but it's been my experience that 1) he doesn't disclose what he's really planning when you have a "discussion," and 2) he doesn't really listen.

I'm not the city councilman. I'm just a concerned citizen, so my position on this isn't that important, but since you're asking. Here's my position, for you and Ed and all of the world to see: Build the streetcar as proposed to the voters (and supported by voters) with the budget proposed, and come up with a better long-term funding mechanism for overall transit.

I do think it important for Ed to publicly state his positions and plans.

The questions I'm hearing, and I think it's probably best that Ed gets to ask them himself - which I hear he has offered to do with Sooner and Urban Pioneer and others - is whether the plan presented to voters was the best way to boost public transit, and whether a pure streetcar system without other improvements to overall transit is the best way to go.

The Streetcar is not the total transit solution, and I don't know anyone who has billed it as that. It is just a part of the overall transit network that includes regional rail, bikes, buses, sidewalks, canal boats, river boats, inter-city buses, and even roads. MAPS III is not the solution or the plan; it is just a funding mechanism to build a very expensive part of the transportation network. If Shadid, or anyone else, wants to spearhead a transportation revamp in OKC I would be all-in for it.

I have proposed an urban transit zone where speed and service is maximized, placing every front door in the urban core (I-35/I-44/I-240) within 3 blocks of a bus stop that has a bus come by every 15 minutes and centered around neighborhood based transit stations. That kind of service comes at the expense of people who choose to live in low density sprawl. I have also encouraged the rebuilding of OKCs waterways (many of which I have been put in concrete boxes and buried) to act as natural corridors connecting the entire urban core which would allow people to bike anywhere. OKC needs a regional transit plan; not a fixed guideway study, a road-building PW department, a parks department off doing their own thing, etc... If we have a regional transit plan there sure as hell isn't anyone following it.

Over the next 20 years several hundred thousand people are going to move to OKC. Those new citizens can move to low density suburbia and take up 4,356 sq feet each or they can move to urban neighborhoods and take up 450 sq feet each. OKC can't afford for all of them to live in low density suburbia. We can't build that many miles of roads, water that much grass, build that many police and fire stations and libraries, etc... but we can build a transportation system that allows people to live car free while at the same time producing safer streets and neighborhoods. We don't need safety via police manpower, we need it via better urban design.

I met with Jarrett Walker "Ed's expert" personally for several hours. I'm actually am the one that initially put him in contact with Ed.

He seems to be a brilliant guy with bright, smart, and reasonable ideas regarding building a better bus system.

We also talked at length about the streetcar proposal. He also had some great ideas and differing perspectives on the project. I listened to him, debated with him, and the experience has definitely affected how I will positively advocate for the implementation of MAPS 3 streetcar and Hub.

I think that there are profound opportunities within MAPS to also improve the bus system should Ed or others exert meaningful leadership within council. I'd say look at those $25 million in contingency funds for the substation Ed!

If we come in under budget on the streetcar/hub and still meet our campaigned for and publicly pledged rail objectives, lets spend the rest on meaningful bus infrastructure. You won't find protest here.

I believe I read or heard somewhere that the bus system would like to incorporate some of their downtown stops using the Streetcar stops. This presents a great opportunity to sell transit as a brand. You'll have the trendiness of the streetcar drawing new riders to these stops. When they see that buses are using the same stops as the streetcar downtown, it might click that bus is just yet another form of mass transit and is not the stereotypical thought of it being only for poor people. Maybe future bus stops can look similar to the streetcar stops to further drive the branding. Streetcar is just another form of transit just as buses are. The common theme is transit and that's the important part we need to convince riders of.

We don't need safety via police manpower, we need it via better urban design.

Ideally and in the long-term, absolutely. But *right now* we need more cops on the street. Our ratios versus other cities is ridiculous.

Ideally and in the long-term, absolutely. But *right now* we need more cops on the street. Our ratios versus other cities is ridiculous.

Other cites suffer from bad urban design more than we do - they need more cops. But if OKC does need more police that shouldn't come at the expense of building a proper transit system. If we keep short changing the long-term plan for the short-term fixes we'll never solve anything. How many police officers would the Boulevard pay for?

At one time, I worked for a large government agency. Some of this reminds me of that. As I was there many years, it would always amaze me how when we got new leadership at the top (after turnovers in political party leadership at the Capitol), each new boss would come in and argue things that had already been studies, tried, argued, etc. by all of their predecessors. These "new ideas" would actually amount to returning to half-baked old arguments.

It's very hard to advance institutional knowledge under this scenario.

With apoloigies to Steve:

"Nothing to see here, people. All part of butchering the steer."

I must say I've never looked at hard data on this subject, but is there any evidence that more police actually deter crime? I know if you have more police they can show up after a crime has been committed, but short of having one as a personal chaperone, I would think the numbers required to act as a deterrent are so enormous as to be unaffordable. What I don't want is a more consistent speed traps on Broadway, more police at Starbucks and more yakking with each other in Bricktown. I'd rather have a streetcar and almost any other civic improvement.

With apoloigies to Steve:

"Nothing to see here, people. All part of butchering the steer."

Hahahaha. LOL. Now that's funny. No offense Steve... But it is. Lol

Yeah, one man's reversed and/or pet cow is another man's bbq party.

The thing I dont understand is dwelling on the resolution. As if anyone could have done anything about that. The city at the time wanted a park and a streetcar, the chamber wanted a convention center, and the council just wanted control. To not give them unprecedented control in the form of a nonbinding resolution would have pulled the plug on the whole thing. Then no streetcar, park, river projects, convention center, or anything. Just 9 angry geriatric folks.

The concern I'm hearing is should what people have already voted on be changed?

Many things are needed to improve public transit overall and no one improvement will do it all. The streetcar is but one, albeit important, step in that direction that had and continues to have strong public support. What other steps can be taken in addition? These might include:


improved transit funding (Sunday bus service, extended bus service hours?) in the FY2014 budget;
allocation of MAPS 3 contingency funds;
Next GO Bond vote;
MAPS IV
Regional Transit District tax; amongst others.

There are many other additional sources of funding and additional approaches to consider to improve public transit in the near, medium and long term. Clearly, public awareness and support of public transit is the greatest it's ever been in this city and region for a long time. That's not going away and this shouldn't be a zero-sum game.


Exactly!

We all want a great transit system...intermodal hub...bus and rail...serving everyone. It will take time to get there. It will take support from a great many. And it will take our cooperative efforts.

In the short term, the best thing that could happen for beginning to develop that system would be to build the best modern streetcar system we can...Bricktown to Midtown...serve the "jewels"...connect to the hub...AND to implement a complete redesign of the current bus system...go to a grid...reduce the service area...increase frequency...utilize technology...integrate with the streetcar...attract new transit users for the streetcar and bus systems.

Some have been working diligently on the streetcar system. Others on the intermodal hub. Those efforts are moving forward, thanks to the dogged determination of many. The City has recently hired Nelson/Nygaard to study the bus system and make proposals for its possible redesign. So who's doggin' that effort?

If it's a better bus system we want, instead of creating dissention and division among the transit community and wasting valuable time and energy trying to defund and dismember the streetcar project, how about more wisely utilizing those resources in a constructive way to ensure that the Nelson/Nygaard study actually results in the changes we need and that other available funding sources are utilized for improving the bus system.

Now there's a novel idea.

The concern I'm hearing is should what people have already voted on be changed?

Many things are needed to improve public transit overall and no one improvement will do it all. The streetcar is but one, albeit important, step in that direction that had and continues to have strong public support. What other steps can be taken in addition? These might include:


improved transit funding (Sunday bus service, extended bus service hours?) in the FY2014 budget;
allocation of MAPS 3 contingency funds;
Next GO Bond vote;
MAPS IV
Regional Transit District tax; amongst others.

There are many other additional sources of funding and additional approaches to consider to improve public transit in the near, medium and long term. Clearly, public awareness and support of public transit is the greatest it's ever been in this city and region for a long time. That's not going away and this shouldn't be a zero-sum game.

To answer your intital question - No. I think there would be overwhelming agreement with that.

The rest of your post is exactly why this is so frustrating. Streetcar advocates (like me) regard the streetcar as the first of hopefully many improvements in OKC's transit system. A vote of OKC citizens chose the streetcar project (along with 8 other projects of varying popularity) as our first step toward the goal of providing multiple moderns modes of transportation. To attempt to redirect the funds that are designated (despite any semantic games one might play with the language of the resolution and/or ballot) for that project would probably derail any future prospects for additional investments in OKC transit via the MAPS mechanism. Despite its flaws, MAPS is a proven method for funding large scale civic projects as long as the voters will and intent is not subrogated. Adherence to the unwritten "contract" between the voters and our elected officials has enabled a potentially flawed process to work quite well for the greater good. To disregard this would negatively impact the momentum OKC has generated over the last several years and that would be very disappointing to see.

I wish the 'Like' function was working - I would 'Like' Hutch's post x1000.

Back to the topic of Mr. Shadid for Mayor. It has been pretty clear the Shadid has set out to be the "contrarian" of the council. I don't always agree with him but I don't think it ever hurts to have someone like that on the council. However, do you want someone like that as your Mayor? I'm sure some people do but to me a lot of the Mayor's job is PR work on behalf of the city. Maybe that is a dumb way for me to look at it but I can't see Mr. Shadid in that role.

Back to the topic of Mr. Shadid for Mayor. It has been pretty clear the Shadid has set out to be the "contrarian" of the council. I don't always agree with him but I don't think it ever hurts to have someone like that on the council. However, do you want someone like that as your Mayor? I'm sure some people do but to me a lot of the Mayor's job is PR work on behalf of the city. Maybe that is a dumb way for me to look at it but I can't see Mr. Shadid in that role.

I think that is a common question for many people that have been posting in this thread OSUFan. Dr Shadid is directly responsible for some of the most valuable debates within the City Council since his election and for that I think OKC is better off. But I think it would require a significant shift in his methods to be effective as Mayor and the question for me is he prepared to do so?

I'm conflicted. I think Shadid is a great council member, but the way I see the mayor role, or at least the way Cornett has played it has been very effective. The mayor-as-cheerleader approach seems to be the best. The mayor at war with the Council might make our city government appear unstable and more like Tulsa.

Ed asked me to the post the following on his behalf:



Without exception, the actual outcome in life is always turns out different than the various scenarios that I fear or hope for.

Without exception, anger is a secondary emotion and when I experience it there are three primary sources: fear, hurt and/or loss of control. If I am angry and I ask myself what primary source(s) is/are at play it tends to have a calming effect especially if I can speak about such things with whomever I am angry. I have no doubt that some of my actions have scared some, have hurt some, and/or have led some to believe they are losing control. In addition, projection is a strong defense mechanism and sometimes I get upset when I recognize, perhaps subconsciously, my own behavior in others.

Without exception, everyone on this thread is passionate about OKC (or they probably wouldn't be interfacing on such a blog) and I believe, would like to see the transit system improved.

In terms of transit goals, my paramount one is to maximize dialogue and induce the interchange of a flurry of diverse thoughts and experiences so that we can arrive at better outcomes; possibly and probably ones that currently none of us see. Time is at a premium; we must act thoroughly but quickly.

The utility of OKC Talk, which was realized to such powerful effect in the Boulevard discussion, was that it served as a vehicle for diverse thoughts and solutions to rapidly be run up the flagpole and critiqued and improved by the suggestions of others. The larger the scale of participation the better will be the outcome and massive scale of such deliberations is my goal.

There are two significant transit studies in the works; one on the bus system which will be released in two weeks and one on the streetcar system in a couple of months. Hopefully they emphasize how multiple modes could work together as simply the transit system. Let's devour every word.

I think the process does break down though when we fail to treat each other with the utmost respect and I fear that if people see unhealthy expressions of anger it will suppress participation.

I think meeting in groups is advantageous as it is more efficient time wise and again, the exchange of multiple perspectives has a higher likelihood of achieving breakthroughs. I will be in the basement at the Belle Isle Library Sunday at 4pm whether anyone shows up or not. If anyone can't make it, we will do many more. If anyone still wants to meet privately I will certainly do that as well; call Boyd Fulton at 297-2402 to schedule

Ed asked me to the post the following on his behalf:

Without exception, the actual outcome in life is always turns out different than the various scenarios that I fear or hope for.

Without exception, anger is a secondary emotion and when I experience it there are three primary sources: fear, hurt and/or loss of control. If I am angry and I ask myself what primary source(s) is/are at play it tends to have a calming effect especially if I can speak about such things with whomever I am angry. I have no doubt that some of my actions have scared some, have hurt some, and/or have led some to believe they are losing control. In addition, projection is a strong defense mechanism and sometimes I get upset when I recognize, perhaps subconsciously, my own behavior in others.

Without exception, everyone on this thread is passionate about OKC (or they probably wouldn't be interfacing on such a blog) and I believe, would like to see the transit system improved.

In terms of transit goals, my paramount one is to maximize dialogue and induce the interchange of a flurry of diverse thoughts and experiences so that we can arrive at better outcomes; possibly and probably ones that currently none of us see. Time is at a premium; we must act thoroughly but quickly.

The utility of OKC Talk, which was realized to such powerful effect in the Boulevard discussion, was that it served as a vehicle for diverse thoughts and solutions to rapidly be run up the flagpole and critiqued and improved by the suggestions of others. The larger the scale of participation the better will be the outcome and massive scale of such deliberations is my goal.

There are two significant transit studies in the works; one on the bus system which will be released in two weeks and one on the streetcar system in a couple of months. Hopefully they emphasize how multiple modes could work together as simply the transit system. Let's devour every word.

I think the process does break down though when we fail to treat each other with the utmost respect and I fear that if people see unhealthy expressions of anger it will suppress participation.

I think meeting in groups is advantageous as it is more efficient time wise and again, the exchange of multiple perspectives has a higher likelihood of achieving breakthroughs. I will be in the basement at the Belle Isle Library Sunday at 4pm whether anyone shows up or not. If anyone can't make it, we will do many more. If anyone still wants to meet privately I will certainly do that as well; call Boyd Fulton at 297-2402 to schedule

Pete:

Tell Ed thanks for the psychology and brain trust lessons. But what most of us really need to know at this point is the answer to a very simple question. Does Ed support taking any of the $120 million committed by City Council for the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar project and spending it on the bus system instead? We'll be waiting to hear his answer.

As an aside, not meaning to sidetrack this thread, and Pete, feel free to move this if you need to ...
OKC Talk, chaotic, enlightening, encouraging, maddening, confusing, amusing and all together crazy, does make a difference in our community. Ed is right - this site played a major role in the boulevard discussion. I've seen this site influence development, spur owners of dormant, blighted buildings to clean up their act, and most recently, directly influenced the design of the Staybridge Suites in Bricktown.
So there, you have my big sloppy wet kiss.

Ed asked me to the post the following on his behalf:



Without exception, the actual outcome in life is always turns out different than the various scenarios that I fear or hope for.

Without exception, anger is a secondary emotion and when I experience it there are three primary sources: fear, hurt and/or loss of control. If I am angry and I ask myself what primary source(s) is/are at play it tends to have a calming effect especially if I can speak about such things with whomever I am angry. I have no doubt that some of my actions have scared some, have hurt some, and/or have led some to believe they are losing control. In addition, projection is a strong defense mechanism and sometimes I get upset when I recognize, perhaps subconsciously, my own behavior in others.

Without exception, everyone on this thread is passionate about OKC (or they probably wouldn't be interfacing on such a blog) and I believe, would like to see the transit system improved.

In terms of transit goals, my paramount one is to maximize dialogue and induce the interchange of a flurry of diverse thoughts and experiences so that we can arrive at better outcomes; possibly and probably ones that currently none of us see. Time is at a premium; we must act thoroughly but quickly.

The utility of OKC Talk, which was realized to such powerful effect in the Boulevard discussion, was that it served as a vehicle for diverse thoughts and solutions to rapidly be run up the flagpole and critiqued and improved by the suggestions of others. The larger the scale of participation the better will be the outcome and massive scale of such deliberations is my goal.

There are two significant transit studies in the works; one on the bus system which will be released in two weeks and one on the streetcar system in a couple of months. Hopefully they emphasize how multiple modes could work together as simply the transit system. Let's devour every word.

I think the process does break down though when we fail to treat each other with the utmost respect and I fear that if people see unhealthy expressions of anger it will suppress participation.

I think meeting in groups is advantageous as it is more efficient time wise and again, the exchange of multiple perspectives has a higher likelihood of achieving breakthroughs. I will be in the basement at the Belle Isle Library Sunday at 4pm whether anyone shows up or not. If anyone can't make it, we will do many more. If anyone still wants to meet privately I will certainly do that as well; call Boyd Fulton at 297-2402 to schedule

This is a nice way to say very little. As for myself, I'm not typically an angry person. If I'm angry, it's about an incident and the anger usually does not persist.

However, I think Ed may be confusing passion for anger.

He's known for some time that the streetcar is a passionately supported MAPS initiative. It should come with little surprise to him that people will respond passionately to his confusing, shifting positions on it.

Similarly, many of the streetcar supporters worked passionately for Ed to help get him elected -- and to support him when he faced criticism. People tend to get a little hacked off when the guy you've supported seemingly turns against you. When someone "has your back," it's typically regarded as a good thing to have theirs, too.

So what is Ed obligated to do? Perhaps he could have been more transparent and open with his streetcar supporters about his misgivings; perhaps he never intended to follow through on the MAPS vote, and just simply didn't reveal that to his supporters. That's how many politicians operate. However, Ed casts himself as a person of integrity, an atypical politician. I cannot speculate because I simply don't understand where he's coming from. That should alarm everyone because this is someone whom I actually know. How can Ed claim transparency here when people who know him don't even know what his positions are?

He says he wants dialogue, but when he held a big public forum about transit, he did not provide a forum for the streetcar supporters to respond to the criticism about the streetcar leveled from the stage of the event. Is this anyone's definition of "dialogue?" If that's dialogue, it's one sided. Further, as has been pointed out in other threads, many of the comments made by his speaker were inaccurate, adding insult to injury. And yet, in this dialogue, there was no way to set the record straight. That's more like a press conference than a conversation.

Ed fails to accept the MAPS vote. It doesn't seem to enter his mind that the voters have spoken. He doesn't seem to understand why people feel passionately about already having voted on this issue.

As for myself, I was truly excited when Ed was elected, because as a progressive, I thought it would be nice to see more ideological balance on the council.

However, my definition of progressive differs from Ed's, apparently. In my view, progressives don't simply complain about problems and attack institutions, they solve problems. Think of some of the greatest progressives: Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR. These people got things done and built institutions. It would be sad if people were to misinterpret progressivism as representing a sector of aggrieved people who constantly complain about things but don't offer workable solutions to problems, or who are unable to work with others because they cannot sell their vision to a broader audience.

Ed's record of actually proposing a solution, winning support for it among his fellow councilors, and bringing people together for a common goal at this point is remarkably bad. His key victory -- one that should be lauded -- is getting the nondiscrimination resolution passed by council. For that, he truly deserves plaudits.

His post may be very well intentioned, but it comes across as condescending.

Anger is not the problem, Ed. The problems are 1) your failure to unequivocally state your position on the streetcar, and 2) your apparent indifference to the will of MAPS voters.

How on earth can this man build an electoral coalition to become mayor? There are other constituencies of Ed's who supported him who are also having misgiving besides streetcar and transit supporters. He's not creating a lot of new friends and he's alienating a lot of old ones.

One final note: in the "failure to see the big picture" category, Ed seems to overlook the fact that the citizens of OKC went to the polls and publicly supported a major transit initiative. That is historic, and something to build upon. Were he to succeed in altering this vote, I cannot imagine a future in which OKC citizens would support future transit initiatives.

Let's use this vote for a transit initiative for what it is: an extremely positive building block from which we can establish an even better overall transit system.

I think one thing that is coming out of this discussion is that projects put into a bucket like this that require entirely different kinds of planning carry with them what I'd call a terrible "impedance mismatch" in terms of the kinds of planning needed to bring them to fruition. By that, I mean its one thing to say "We want to build a convention center," which amounts to identifying size, land, features, acquisition costs, and time. But to say "We want a streetcar" is deceptively complex, because you're obviously not just going to buy a bunch of streetcars and let them start running essentially in a vacuum. That idea has to be integrated into some semblance of a plan that considers the other forms of transportation in the area.

I want to insist I'm carefully neutral on this general streetcar issue. Many people strongly support it, have put great effort into it, know it was part of the original intent initiative, and the voters passed it, so in that vein every effort should be made to get it built as "intended." But if there is someone more learned out there that says, "hey, wait, there's a legitimate "X" factor to consider before you roll out those streetcars," then it would be poor stewardship of the project to press ahead blindly without performing some level of due diligence to hear out those issues. And maybe that's already been done. Won't presume to say that I know either way. I am certainly no streetcar opponent.

The point here is that if you build out the streetcars in a vacuum, but don't integrate them properly (and I am not saying this is the case), it looks like an ill-conceived project. On the other hand, if you don't build them at all, you've negated the voice of the people in their vote. Neither is a particularly wise choice, IMHO.

You could almost say the streetcar plan has been evaluated ad nauseum, beginning with the Fixed Guideways Study, then the Alternatives Analysis, COTPA assessments used for federal funding grant proposals, preliminary engineering studies by Jacobs, 2 1/2 years of input to and from the Transit Subcomittee and now the route analysis by Jacobs Engineering and Rick Gustafson. I'm not worried that it has suffered from lack of analysis or planning. The advantage and disadvantage of buses is that routes are flexible, and COTPA representatives have been gracious enough to attend all the subcommittee meetings, a bus study is due shortly and I feel confident every effort will be made to coordinate the two modes.

Pete:

Tell Ed thanks for the psychology and brain trust lessons. But what most of us really need to know at this point is the answer to a very simple question. Does Ed support taking any of the $120 million committed by City Council for the MAPS 3 Modern Streetcar project and spending it on the bus system instead? We'll be waiting to hear his answer.

Ed reads these forums, so you already did tell him. :)

One thing to remember about Ed and many politicians is that it is a lot easier to be AGAINST things than to be FOR things. The anti crowd is usually the more vocal and activist. However, on this issue Ed is finding out the PRO crowd is the more vocal. And, Ed needs to learn that it takes real skill to be inclusive and transparent but still have leadership. Consensus often means "least common denominator". Ed needs to pick a side and lead on this issue, and then build support from his fellow council members. This is a skill of leadership. If he can't do it on one issue, how could he possibly hope to be an effective mayor?

Back to the topic of Mr. Shadid for Mayor. It has been pretty clear the Shadid has set out to be the "contrarian" of the council. I don't always agree with him but I don't think it ever hurts to have someone like that on the council. However, do you want someone like that as your Mayor? I'm sure some people do but to me a lot of the Mayor's job is PR work on behalf of the city. Maybe that is a dumb way for me to look at it but I can't see Mr. Shadid in that role.

I totally agree. I voted for him as City Councilman but would not vote for him as Mayor

Like (#220)

You won't like hearing this.... but it looks like you're about to have a piece of paper (the MAPS 3 resolution) in which only five of those who signed it will be still be on the city council in two weeks. Four members will have had nothing to do with signing the resolution. Two - Pete White and Ed Shadid - are pro public transit but have questions about the streetcar system. Of the other two about to get seated (if voting patterns hold), Greiner has indicated public transit, downtown is not on the top of his list of priorities. Not sure about Pettis. Folks, get ready... you will likely be questioned. You will likely be challenged. Whether it's right or wrong, whether you like it or not.
Can a good thought out discussion and debate online not assist you in prepping for this?

You won't like hearing this.... but it looks like you're about to have a piece of paper (the MAPS 3 resolution) in which only five of those who signed it will be still be on the city council in two weeks. Four members will have had nothing to do with signing the resolution. Two - Pete White and Ed Shadid - are pro public transit but have questions about the streetcar system. Of the other two about to get seated (if voting patterns hold), Greiner has indicated public transit, downtown is not on the top of his list of priorities. Not sure about Pettis. Folks, get ready... you will likely be questioned. You will likely be challenged. Whether it's right or wrong, whether you like it or not.
Can a good thought out discussion and debate online not assist you in prepping for this?

Rubbing it in just a wee little bit? Do I detect a little glee in your tone? Your point is made.

That said, do you think Skip Kelly was a big streetcar fan? I didn't see that. He was in the Shadid-White block, if you can call it that.

Reducing MAPS to a "piece of paper" seems like a reach. All contracts and agreements are on paper. Doesn't mean they can't get violated but there would be political fallout.

As far as being challenged, I think the new council members will also be challenged, as will you when appropriate.

I'm sure this will be good for drumming up readership to your blog.

Good grief Sooner... NO! I'm not gleeful. If there is an effort to tear up that resolution, I have difficulty seeing how it won't be ugly and painful for our city, and potentially deadly to the MAPS brand. l'm trying to throw some cold water on you, wake you up to what's happening. Quit seeing me as the enemy on this..... if you really think this is about me drumming up readership for my blog, you're absolutely wrong.
Read my comment again... I'm suggesting you guys prep up ....

Already prepped as can be. We'll do our best to honor the intent of the voters. Ultimately it is all up to Council. We knew this going into into it.

Good grief Sooner... NO! I'm not gleeful. If there is an effort to tear up that resolution, I have difficulty seeing how it won't be ugly and painful for our city, and potentially deadly to the MAPS brand. l'm trying to throw some cold water on you, wake you up to what's happening. Quit seeing me as the enemy on this..... if you really think this is about me drumming up readership for my blog, you're absolutely wrong.
Read my comment again... I'm suggesting you guys prep up ....

OK. I obviously misread your comments. Mea culpa.

Good grief Sooner... NO! I'm not gleeful. If there is an effort to tear up that resolution, I have difficulty seeing how it won't be ugly and painful for our city, and potentially deadly to the MAPS brand. l'm trying to throw some cold water on you, wake you up to what's happening. Quit seeing me as the enemy on this..... if you really think this is about me drumming up readership for my blog, you're absolutely wrong.
Read my comment again... I'm suggesting you guys prep up ....

And nice hear your comments Steve.

I think everyone is quite awake. I've been to multiple meetings recently, however, and have been gratified at the extremely widespread support for the streetcar in multiple camps, some of which surprised me.

Well at least Ed doesn't have to worry about running against Gary Marrs now.

Word on the street indicates that Shadid and Greiner are not exactly rowing the boat in the same direction.

Word on the street indicates that Shadid and Greiner are not exactly rowing the boat in the same direction.

So what? When has Ed ever rowed in the same direction as anyone else?

So what? When has Ed ever rowed in the same direction as anyone else?

LOL. Good point.

OK, so folks are assuming this knocks Gary Marrs out of contention for the mayor's race. Ed Shadid is indicating he's going to run. Will Mick Cornett run for re-election? Will Meg Salyer run? Will someone like Dave Lopez run? Will there be a surprise candidate?

Andrew Rice?

OK, so folks are assuming this knocks Gary Marrs out of contention for the mayor's race. Ed Shadid is indicating he's going to run. Will Mick Cornett run for re-election? Will Meg Salyer run? Will someone like Dave Lopez run? Will there be a surprise candidate?

Steve Lackmeyer in 2014!

Andrew Rice would have my vote. Wow. A Rice / Shadid race would be interesting. Rice would win. And no offense to Steve, but Dave Lopez? Seriously?

I would also vote to reelect Mick, should he run.

Steve Lackmeyer in 2014!
Only if Soonerguru agrees to become my campaign manager.
;)

You won't like hearing this.... but it looks like you're about to have a piece of paper (the MAPS 3 resolution) in which only five of those who signed it will be still be on the city council in two weeks. Four members will have had nothing to do with signing the resolution. ...
Curious, how does this compare with MAPS 1? How many of the Council were still there at the end of it as the beginning. What did it mean with the change of bodies?

There's no comparison between MAPS 1 and MAPS 3. Projects were hard wired into ballot with MAPS 1. With MAPS 3, voters gave city council $777 million to spend on public improvements. City council then approved a resolution that can be voided with five or more votes.

Steve: True but even though the projects were "hard wired", when they were discussing if the Arena should be scrapped, it came up that they didn't need voter approval to do so. That the Council, by a simple majority vote could deem a project completed without a single spade of dirt being turned.

OK, so folks are assuming this knocks Gary Marrs out of contention for the mayor's race. Ed Shadid is indicating he's going to run. Will Mick Cornett run for re-election? Will Meg Salyer run? Will someone like Dave Lopez run? Will there be a surprise candidate?

Definitely not going help Shadid or his consultants out with what I know about contenders.

BTW, if Soonerguru was your campaign manager Steve, I'd say you'd have a great chance of winning. ;)

Steve: True but even though the projects were "hard wired", when they were discussing if the Arena should be scrapped, it came up that they didn't need voter approval to do so. That the Council, by a simple majority vote could deem a project completed without a single spade of dirt being turned.

Could they and should they are two very different questions. I think yesterday's city council elections showed that no seat is safe. A disgruntled electorate is an unpredictable electorate.

I would also vote to reelect Mick, should he run.

I think that Mick has done a good job throughout the Maps process. I would also vote to re-elect him.

There's no comparison between MAPS 1 and MAPS 3. Projects were hard wired into ballot with MAPS 1. With MAPS 3, voters gave city council $777 million to spend on public improvements. City council then approved a resolution that can be voided with five or more votes.

Legally, yes, that's the way things are worded. That said, your ordinary voter isn't going to appreciate a legalistic argument. We were promised these:

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/projects.html)

Alter the course dramatically and the MAPS brand will be irreparably tarnished and potentially non-viable looking forward. With MAPS III, the Council was asking the citizens to trust them. Councilmen have an ethical obligation to honor the will of the people--and that means supporting the MAPS III projects as originally sold to the people whether or not the individual councilmen agree with it. I hope individual councilmen can set their own personal egos and agendas aside and realize the viability of the MAPS brand is bigger than their personal legacy as an OKC councilman.

Only if Soonerguru agrees to become my campaign manager.
;)

No, no, me me!