Without MAPS, I'm sorry, but you have a downtown with huge undeveloped pockets left over from Urban Renewal, a dying or dead Bricktown, an undeveloped river, blight from MidTown (with a vacant St. Anthony hospital) to NW 63 (because McClendon and Ward couldn't have built up Chesapeake and the surrounding area due to the inability of attracting good young talent). You don't have Continental Resources, you have a dying I-40-Meridian Avenue corridor, you have a continuous stretch of blight from the river south to I-240. You don't have Devon Energy (Larry Nichols has said this to me directly), and without all these high paying jobs, the historic neighborhoods are struggling. You still have a huge number of boarded up homes due to the oil bust - homes that weren't bought and renovated by a burgeoning young creative class.
Is OKC dead without MAPS? No. But it sure isn't the Oklahoma City we know in 2013. I've lived here since 1977, I've had a front seat to what's transpired the past 20 years, I've done the interviews, I've done the research. Without MAPS, cafebouf, betts, sid and many others on this board would be long gone.
I was here Larry. I was part of the minority in my generation (Generation X) who didn't flee when the economy went bust in the 1980s. I saw family friends who were executives at trucking companies - making six figures - reduced to working at the Hertz calling center. I knew another man, an engineer, who started up a janitorial service and survived cleaning offices of those who were once his peers. People were losing their homes. My family lost their home in Quail Creek, and they went back to New York while I stayed.
Hell yes it was a Depression in Oklahoma City. And it's crazy to think Oklahoma City wouldn't have continued to slide into the abyss without a radical restructuring like MAPS.

I completely agree. More, I agree so strongly that I'm inclined to think (in a friendly way) that those who disagree are just ... well, what is a friendly word that means "idiots" ... "woefully mistaken" will do, I suppose.


I will be 70 in July. I am blessed with fond memories of downtown before the Pei Plan. I remember the flight of retail/entertainment to suburban areas. I remember the hope that the Pei Plan would bring a revitalized downtown and the razing of much of downtown that gave downtown its character and mystique ... yes, for me, at least, downtown did have such a thing as "mystique" before the Pei Plan. I remember the Oil Bust, the Penn Square failure and its domino effect on local banks and those in other states. I remember the deadness of downtown which lasted for many years for anyone having a reason to come downtown, and none did unless one worked there 9 to 5. During that time, I was a lawyer with a divorce, etc., practice, and, were it feasible for me to do so (it's not easy for a lawyer to pick up and move to another jurisdiction) I would have, to my childhood favorite location of Corpus Christi, Texas. But, it wasn't feasible and I was stuck in the city of my birth. I guess that I could have moved to Tulsa or other location in Oklahoma, but that involved similar problems to locating out of state, e.g., developing a practice and presence within a community.


Over time, the original MAPS changed that not only by its projects but also by the city pride which, after many years of suffering and shame, yes, shame, was reborn and has since continued to grow. The Thunder. Bricktown. Deep Deuce. The developments in Midtown. The decision by St. Anthony's to stay put and expand. Automobile Alley. Myriad Gardens ... etc. etc. etc. ... without MAPS, Oklahoma City would have none of the above.


All of which, of course, is off topic, the topic being Shadid's possible or probable candidacy for mayor in 2014.

I have some preliminary and very general thoughts about that possibility, too. I'll state some of them here.


As I've already done several times in my blog and in this forum, I am a big-time supporter of Ed Shadid, and I remain so, today. He alone, as either former or sitting council members (including the mayor) has been a champion of transparency and bona fide participation of citizenry in the process of decision making, particularly decision making which involves major items involving the city's future and he alone is willing to stick his neck out on account of principle. Pete White comes close, but he hasn't followed through in various city council circumstances. If you disagree, please name another who fills such shoes.


Most comments in this thread which are negative about him relate to his possible views with regard to the possibility of revisiting MAPS 3, particularly the downtown streetcar matter. Largely, it seems, those views spin out from comments that he made at his Public Transportation town hall meeting on February 26, 2013, at the Farmers Market. The video of his remarks is at the following link:
http://vimeo.com/edshadid/transit


In a broader sense (i.e., above and beyond downtown streetcar), a criticism is that he would re-open the door as to how MAPS 3 money ($777 m) should be spent. We (at least those who are particularly familiar with the MAPS 3 campaign) understood when we voted that (1) the MAPS 3 ballot was, strictly speaking, for a penny sales tax for 7 3/4 years for capital improvements, without particularity as to projects or amounts to be spent thereon; (2) the particularly came in the form of a non-binding city council resolution which identified the projects and approximate amounts. Differing from the original MAPS vote, or MAPS for Kids, or Ford Center improvements and NBA training facility votes, in MAPS 3 city leaders (council members) told city voters, "Trust us. We will do these projects." A general criticism of Shadid in this thread is that he may feel free to abandon the trust factor and revisit how the MAPS 3 $777 m sales tax should be expended.


As a mayoral candidate, should he become one, Shadid has not yet stated with specificity what his intentions are with regard to Maps 3, including downtown rail and Maps 3 generally. I, for one, would defer any judgmental statements about him, personally or substantively as to what he might propose, until he actually does so.


Some have emphasized/suggested that Shadid is TOO principled ... that he isn't "political" enough" to be able to form a political consensus and then proceed with the consensus agenda. I'm not really clear about how to read such criticisms ... do the criticisms mean that he is "too good" of a person to be mayor ... do they mean that he would not work well with the chamber ... do they mean that he would expect journalism at the Oklahoman to be non-chamber-oriented and just report the facts? Actually, these questions are some of the most intriguing, to me. I'm interested to see how this all comes down.

As to Shadid's candidacy, we have a weak/figurehead mayor in OKC. He's an ambassador of sorts. Our current mayor has served us very well in that regard. Does Cornett have ideas of his own anymore? Is he articulate on any issue other than stating that he's in favor of business growth (as opposed to those of us who are against it, I guess), what are his issues? Maybe that's the best role for a mayor when we're in a transitional period like this--create a long term plan, then continue to promote the plan and general growth and the city's image in general.

I'm not so sure that I don't value Shadid more as a councilman than a mayor. I like that Shadid speaks his mind and doesn't mind being the one dissenting vote. I think he's a principled guy. That said, I'd rather not have a mayor who gets into public tiffs with the rest of the Council who divides the city rather than promoting a common plan.

Mid and Sid, good points to be sure. But I still think that it's premature to pigeonhole Shadid's views on Maps 3 stuff until he actually speaks, as a candidate, about them.

And, Mid, as much as I vociferously supported what Cornett did for the arena/nba facility vote, during the Maps 3 campaign, I was aghast that he telephoned the Oklahoman and told it to back off on its coverage of Maps 3 during the campaign. I'm not able to reveal my source for that, but I have no doubt that it occurred.

Sure, Cornett has done some good things for the city, but a dark side is there, too.

As to Shadid's candidacy, we have a weak/figurehead mayor in OKC. He's an ambassador of sorts. Our current mayor has served us very well in that regard. Does Cornett have ideas of his own anymore? Is he articulate on any issue other than stating that he's in favor of business growth (as opposed to those of us who are against it, I guess), what are his issues? Maybe that's the best role for a mayor when we're in a transitional period like this--create a long term plan, then continue to promote the plan and general growth and the city's image in general.


This is a really good point. Largely because he is much more free to do these things than a typical mayor, Cornett has been great at being the public/national face of OKC. And it is a nice counterweight to the crazy coming out at the state capitol that we would otherwise be known for. You would be surprised how many people outside of Oklahoma know who Mick Cornett is.

Ed just doesn't possess the same media savvy that he has. I just can't see him going on Bloomberg, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. and expressing the same passion and exuberance that Mick does for OKC. That's just how you are with a dissenter attitude.

Does it occur to you to think/wonder what Shadid might have to say in a cheerleader mode? Or whether Shadid has thought of himself in such a role? Good questions, for both you and him.

Does it occur to you to think/wonder what Shadid might have to say in a cheerleader mode? Or whether Shadid has thought of himself in such a role? Good questions, for both you and him.

I have to admit, I am only able to make that judgement based on observing him in city council meetings over the past few months. I can certainly change my opinion, but he would need to step a bit more. There is a certain tone deafness there that would lead me to believe he would struggle in the role of "head cheerleader."

Does it occur to you to think/wonder what Shadid might have to say in a cheerleader mode? Or whether Shadid has thought of himself in such a role? Good questions, for both you and him.

Personalities don't change. As a friend of mine is fond of saying..."you can change someone, just not very much." You don't tell a Rottweiler to be a Poodle and they just do it.

We have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation and the best NBA team west of the Mississippi. We don't need a cheerleader, we need accountability. This is something Ed has practiced as much as he has preached, by acknowledging the larger online community and soliciting feedback, publicly and privately.

I think Ed does precisely what he wants, feedback or no. It may be that every other politician does the same, but I see no evidence that he solicits all points of view. I think he looks for POV that match his own. It's probably a failing of most of us, but I don't think he's on a higher plane.

What Ed has done so far is suck up to niche groups in an attempt to build a base. This tells me that he has professional consultants guiding him in the process. Ed is not pro city, he is pro Ed and Ed only. If you don't believe, just wait. The worst thing this City could do would be to elect him to the position of Mayor.

I completely agree. More, I agree so strongly that I'm inclined to think (in a friendly way) that those who disagree are just ... well, what is a friendly word that means "idiots" ... "woefully mistaken" will do, I suppose.


I will be 70 in July. I am blessed with fond memories of downtown before the Pei Plan. I remember the flight of retail/entertainment to suburban areas. I remember the hope that the Pei Plan would bring a revitalized downtown and the razing of much of downtown that gave downtown its character and mystique ... yes, for me, at least, downtown did have such a thing as "mystique" before the Pei Plan. I remember the Oil Bust, the Penn Square failure and its domino effect on local banks and those in other states. I remember the deadness of downtown which lasted for many years for anyone having a reason to come downtown, and none did unless one worked there 9 to 5. During that time, I was a lawyer with a divorce, etc., practice, and, were it feasible for me to do so (it's not easy for a lawyer to pick up and move to another jurisdiction) I would have, to my childhood favorite location of Corpus Christi, Texas. But, it wasn't feasible and I was stuck in the city of my birth. I guess that I could have moved to Tulsa or other location in Oklahoma, but that involved similar problems to locating out of state, e.g., developing a practice and presence within a community.


Over time, the original MAPS changed that not only by its projects but also by the city pride which, after many years of suffering and shame, yes, shame, was reborn and has since continued to grow. The Thunder. Bricktown. Deep Deuce. The developments in Midtown. The decision by St. Anthony's to stay put and expand. Automobile Alley. Myriad Gardens ... etc. etc. etc. ... without MAPS, Oklahoma City would have none of the above.


All of which, of course, is off topic, the topic being Shadid's possible or probable candidacy for mayor in 2014.

I have some preliminary and very general thoughts about that possibility, too. I'll state some of them here.


As I've already done several times in my blog and in this forum, I am a big-time supporter of Ed Shadid, and I remain so, today. He alone, as either former or sitting council members (including the mayor) has been a champion of transparency and bona fide participation of citizenry in the process of decision making, particularly decision making which involves major items involving the city's future and he alone is willing to stick his neck out on account of principle. Pete White comes close, but he hasn't followed through in various city council circumstances. If you disagree, please name another who fills such shoes.


Most comments in this thread which are negative about him relate to his possible views with regard to the possibility of revisiting MAPS 3, particularly the downtown streetcar matter. Largely, it seems, those views spin out from comments that he made at his Public Transportation town hall meeting on February 26, 2013, at the Farmers Market. The video of his remarks is at the following link:
http://vimeo.com/edshadid/transit


In a broader sense (i.e., above and beyond downtown streetcar), a criticism is that he would re-open the door as to how MAPS 3 money ($777 m) should be spent. We (at least those who are particularly familiar with the MAPS 3 campaign) understood when we voted that (1) the MAPS 3 ballot was, strictly speaking, for a penny sales tax for 7 3/4 years for capital improvements, without particularity as to projects or amounts to be spent thereon; (2) the particularly came in the form of a non-binding city council resolution which identified the projects and approximate amounts. Differing from the original MAPS vote, or MAPS for Kids, or Ford Center improvements and NBA training facility votes, in MAPS 3 city leaders (council members) told city voters, "Trust us. We will do these projects." A general criticism of Shadid in this thread is that he may feel free to abandon the trust factor and revisit how the MAPS 3 $777 m sales tax should be expended.


As a mayoral candidate, should he become one, Shadid has not yet stated with specificity what his intentions are with regard to Maps 3, including downtown rail and Maps 3 generally. I, for one, would defer any judgmental statements about him, personally or substantively as to what he might propose, until he actually does so.


Some have emphasized/suggested that Shadid is TOO principled ... that he isn't "political" enough" to be able to form a political consensus and then proceed with the consensus agenda. I'm not really clear about how to read such criticisms ... do the criticisms mean that he is "too good" of a person to be mayor ... do they mean that he would not work well with the chamber ... do they mean that he would expect journalism at the Oklahoman to be non-chamber-oriented and just report the facts? Actually, these questions are some of the most intriguing, to me. I'm interested to see how this all comes down.


Doug,

As always, I greatly admire your writing.

So, from what I've read, for you it boils down to the following:

1. In your opinion, anyone who doesn't understand why MAPS is important to this city is pretty much an idiot (for lack of a kinder term).

and

2. As of now, you are not convinced that Ed Shadid is against MAPS.

I presume further that if you find, as others have, that Shadid has not voted for any of the MAPS projects and doesn't seem to believe he's committed to building them, that he will quickly be relegated to your "idiot for lack of a better term" category.

I have an idea: next time you see Ed, just ask him point blank: "Ed, are you going to support building the streetcar and other MAPS projects the voters went to the polls and supported?"

You may be surprised by the lack of a coherent response.

Sooner, I'm not going to presume to speak for Doug. But I read his response much differently than you. His "idiot" comment was relating to the idea that the city wasn't in a huge downward spiral prior to MAPS and that MAPS was a game changer for the city. Now, do I engage in calling anyone an idiot? No. But I will bow to Doug's age, experience and wisdom and not question the choice of arguments he makes as an experienced lawyer who still enjoys a good debate!
;)

Waiting to see what ‘candidate' Shaded says. What the difference between city council candidate Shadid in 2011, Councilman Shadid, mayoral candidate Shadid, and Mayor Shadid? Aren't they the same person?

If I had a nickel for every time a political candidate said something the elected version of the same person didn’t really mean I would be retired on my own private island.

We have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation and the best NBA team west of the Mississippi. We don't need a cheerleader, we need accountability. This is something Ed has practiced as much as he has preached, by acknowledging the larger online community and soliciting feedback, publicly and privately.

The forms of municipal government allowed under Oklahoma statutes include "Strong Mayor" and "Council-Manager". OKC has a "Council-Manager", also referred to as a "City Manager" form of government. The Mayor's position is to administer Council proceedings, execute official Council documents, make appointments to committees and commissions, and serves as the government representative for ceremonial purposes. Beyond those functions, the Mayor is just another council member and has no more authority to act or bring a cause of action than any of the other member of Council.

Below is some of the specific statute language for the Council-Manager form of government. Besides the sections detailing the duties of the Mayor and powers of the Council, make sure to read the limitations of Council to act.

In a Council-Manager form of government, City Council hires the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for hiring all staff and overseeing government operations. City Council is restricted by state statute from directing, admonishing, interferring with or in any way administering City staff and employees. Only the City Manager has that authority.

Most issues having to do with city government actions, services and accountability arise out of the actions of staff, which Council has no authority over except through directives given to the City Manager.

You don't get accountability in a City Manager form of government by focusing on electing one person as Mayor. You get accountability by electing a majority on City Council who are committed to fair, open and transparent government, and who demand such from the City Manager and are willing to replace the City Manager if their recommendations and directives are not being met.

Statutory Council-Manager Form of Government
(Title 11 of the Oklahoma Statutes)

GOVERNING BODY (Section 10-102)

The governing body of a statutory council manager city shall consist of one (1) councilmember from each ward of the city and one (1) councilmember at large.

DUTIES OF THE MAYOR AND VICE-MAYOR (Section 10-105)

The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council, and shall certify to the correct enrollment of all ordinances and resolutions passed by it. He shall be recognized as head of the city government for all ceremonial purposes and by the Governor for purposes of military law. He shall have no regular administrative duties except that he shall sign all conveyances and other written obligations of the city as the council may require. The vice mayor shall act as mayor during the absence, disability or suspension of the mayor.

POWERS VESTED IN COUNCIL — DESIGNATED POWERS (Section 10-106)

All powers of a statutory council manager city, including the determination of matters of policy, shall be vested in the council. Without limitation of the foregoing, the council may:

1. Appoint and remove the city manager as provided by law;

2. Enact municipal legislation subject to limitations as may now or hereafter be imposed by the Oklahoma Constitution and law;

3. Raise revenue, make appropriations, regulate salaries and wages, and all other fiscal affairs of the city, subject to such limitations as may now or hereafter be imposed by the Oklahoma Constitution and law;
4. Inquire into the conduct of any office, department or agency of the city, and investigate municipal affairs, or authorize and provide for such inquiries;

5. Appoint or elect and remove its own subordinates, members of commissions and boards and other quasi legislative or quasi judicial officers as provided by law, or prescribe the method of appointing or electing and removing them;

6. Create, change and abolish offices, departments and agencies other than those established by law, and assign additional functions and duties to offices, departments and agencies established by this article; and

7. Grant pardons for violations of municipal ordinances, including the remission of fines and costs, upon the recommendation of the municipal judge.

LIMITATION OF COUNCIL AUTHORITY TO ACT THROUGH CITY MANAGER (Section 10-107)

Except for the purposes of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service of the city solely through the city manager. The council and its members may not:

1. Direct or request the city manager or other authority to appoint or remove officers or employees;

2. Participate in any manner in the appointment or removal of officers and employees of the city, except as provided by law; or

3. Give orders on ordinary administrative matters to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately.

Thanks for posting this info for others less knowledgeable.

Doug,

As always, I greatly admire your writing.
Thank you, soonerguru.

Sooner, I'm not going to presume to speak for Doug. But I read his response much differently than you. His "idiot" comment was relating to the idea that the city wasn't in a huge downward spiral prior to MAPS and that MAPS was a game changer for the city. Now, do I engage in calling anyone an idiot? No. But I will bow to Doug's age, experience and wisdom and not question the choice of arguments he makes as an experienced lawyer who still enjoys a good debate!
;)About your first point, you correctly interpreted my meaning. As to you your second, your wisdom far exceeds your youthful age.

Hutch: excellent info. Sometimes the Mayor and City staff seem to forget sometimes.

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.

Luckily for Oklahoma City, most people feel differently. If it weren't for MAPS, I wouldn't live here, I suspect a fair number of posters on this forum wouldn't live here, we wouldn't have the Thunder or the Devon Tower, wouldn't be the Olympic Training center for kayak and crew and likely wouldn't have this forum to argue about it. I could go on and on about what Oklahoma City wouldn't have if not for MAPS. I make a concerted effort to do as much shopping as humanly possible IN Oklahoma City so I can pay the tax that keeps us moving forward.

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.

It was a temporary tax. Then we overwhelmingly voted to extend it. Then we voted to extend it again and again and it's still temporary until we vote to extend it again. Your argument has been tried and found wanting by anti-tax activists over and over again. Over and over again, the people of OKC have shown the world what we can accomplish when we pool our resources to improve our community's infrastructure.

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.Why do you blame Mick?

I think we have a Shadid plant here. Common now in social media.

I think we have a Shadid plant here. Common now in social media.

I wouldn't go that far. Maybe a Shadid lackey, but not a plant.

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.

Sounds like you need to live in Tulsa. Where they are stuck in the 80's.

SUPER! Anybody but Mayor Mick! It is time for an end to MAPS. It was supposed to be a temporary tax, not a permanent one. While I live in OKC I try to spend all of my money I can where taxes are lower.

Over a one cent sales tax? You will drive all the way out of the city to save a few pennies? If you spend a thousand dollars in a shopping spree, that's ten bucks for MAPS. You'll spend more than that on gas driving to Norman. I don't know about you, but I tend to spend my money in less than thousand dollar increments. So I'm not really sure we should take financial advice from you.

Don't have the info handy, but IIRC, the City/Chamber had info out there during the MAPS 3 campaign that indicated that many of the bordering communities have higher tax rates than OKC. If you oppose paying for MAPS that is one thing, but to do so, you may be costing yourself more. Like someone said, even if the tax rate is lower, it may be costing you more in gas, time traveled etc than what you are saving.

It appears to be official.

Ed Shadid | Oklahoma City Ward 2 Councilman (http://www.edshadid.com/)

Can't wait to begin working against him. A couple years ago, I would have given him serious consideration, but his attempts to damage the progress of the streetcar are enough to disqualify him for consideration.

Can't wait to begin working against him. A couple years ago, I would have given him serious consideration, but his attempts to damage the progress of the streetcar are enough to disqualify him for consideration.

We should be in favor of public dialogue and improving the transit system, not a particular mode of transit that has unacknowledged flaws. Dr. Shadid brought in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion and you consider that damaging the progress of the streetcar?

We should be in favor of public dialogue and improving the transit system, not a particular mode of transit that has unacknowledged flaws. Dr. Shadid brought in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion and you consider that damaging the progress of the streetcar?

No, I don't consider bringing in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion damaging to the progress of the streetcar. Can you show me where I said that or is that just one huge logical jump you made yourself?

I'm now completely off the Shadid bandwagon. He is a garden-variety duplicitous politician masquerading as a crusader for the common man. He drives a Lexus, lives in a penthouse, and doesn't respect the voters who supported MAPS. He thinks he knows better than all of us, and that he can remake MAPS for what he thinks it should be when he didn't even vote in any of the MAPS elections. He turned his back on people who supported him and is a toxic, cancerous presence in OKC politics.

What is sad is there are many people who will continue to support him because he supposedly is a "progressive," but the progressives I respect throughout history were willing to work with others to achieve their goals. Ed hasn't accomplished anything of substance as a councilman (short of the non-discrimination clause). Anyone can ask questions, but few politicians can provide answers. Ed is certainly not providing any leadership and his presence is destructive.

He has managed to split the small transit-supporting community we have. He is a divisive figure who would be a disaster as mayor.

We should be in favor of public dialogue and improving the transit system, not a particular mode of transit that has unacknowledged flaws. Dr. Shadid brought in a national transit consultant to bring up important questions for discussion and you consider that damaging the progress of the streetcar?

The consultant he brought in wasn't even familiar with how we fund MAPS projects. The basis of his critique was that we weren't getting federal funding, when we don't even need federal funding to complete the project. The speaker had an agenda against streetcars and was chosen for that purpose. Further, the streetcar subcommittee was provided no opportunity to respond to the ill-informed attacks from the podium. It was a dog and pony show paid for by Shadid to further his agenda. It was not in any way a "discussion." To suggest it was is embarrassing. Most people are not this gullible.

I find it "interesting" (using favored Steve Lackmeyer parlance) that Shadid will not come out and say he's against the streetcar project, when we all know he is. Why? Because deep down he knows he's going to lose a lot of voters overnight if he comes clean on his position. Spartan is correct: Hey, Shadid, put up or shut up.

So he will continue this charade that he's just "asking questions."

Perhaps if you think Shadid is a good councilman or a good candidate for mayor, you should consider asking him questions, starting with: "Will you uphold the will of the voters who have spoken on this issue, or will you try to subvert their votes?"

I'm now completely off the Shadid bandwagon. ...

He turned his back on people who supported him and is a toxic, cancerous presence in OKC politics.

...

Christe Eleison...what does that make the rest of the politicians in OKC?

You surely can't be serious.

I think any effort to eliminate the Streetcar from MAPS 3 is asinine and would be the biggest blunder in this city's history full of big blunders. But this sort of derisive language is absolutely absurd.

That you are convinced that Shadid is *Against* a Streetcar when he's never come out and said such a thing is really baffling. I'm not even a Shadid apologist, but come on man...Quit putting words in people's mouths.

I'm now completely off the Shadid bandwagon. He is a garden-variety duplicitous politician masquerading as a crusader for the common man. He drives a Lexus, lives in a penthouse, and doesn't respect the voters who supported MAPS.
Daamn ... he even drives a Lexus and lives in a penthouse? Thanks so much for the important info.

He's a fine councilman. And really, what a great day when the voters were able to stick their thumbs in the eyes of the city fathers and deny them another total shill on the horseshoe? I appreciate Shadid in that he does bring a different perspective. He's not afraid to ruffle feathers and he's not afraid to question conventional wisdom.

Trouble is, the role of a mayor vs. a councilman is very different. A mayor doesn't have all that much more power than a councilman does, but is expected to be the voice of the city government. I'd rather show businesses a city government which might have a dissenting voice or two, but generally has itself together rather than a city government where the Council is at odds with the mayor and on its way to being a hot mess.

Please Shadid, don't Tulsa my OKC.

Please Shadid, don't Tulsa my OKC.

This pretty much sums it up, and you're certainly not the first I've heard to put this into almost these exact words

This pretty much sums it up, and you're certainly not the first I've heard to put this into almost these exact words

Ed Shadid scares me.

This may not be a popular thing to say, but Tulsa does have some significant cultural advantages over OKC or at least once did. However they have been rather stagnant for the past decade in Tulsa while things have been really happening for OKC. A lot of people in Tulsa blame their mayor who I think was recently ousted. I would hate to see OKC go down a similar path.

An excellent measure of how divisive a political figure will be is how he treats his "enemies" or those who oppose his plans. A politician who cannot compromise, see both sides of an issue and be gracious in defeat will divide and shatter. There is no conquer in a democracy, but divisiveness can definitely destroy momentum and progress.

Ed Shadid scares me.

This may not be a popular thing to say, but Tulsa does have some significant cultural advantages over OKC or at least once did. However they have been rather stagnant for the past decade in Tulsa while things have been really happening for OKC. A lot of people in Tulsa blame their mayor who I think was recently ousted. I would hate to see OKC go down a similar path.

You need to take a trip up the pike. A young man by the name of Sir Paul just played a couple nights stand there.

You need to take a trip up the pike. A young man by the name of Sir Paul just played a couple nights stand there.

Sir Paul has played here before also....not only that, when he did his infamous Route 66 trip in the '76 Broncho he made it a point to spend the night at the Skirvin and had dinner at Nonas.

As for me, I await Shadid's specific statements as to the streetcar element of MAPS 3 before forming a judgment, as well as other potential candidates doing the same. It is "not OK" (to use Shadid's phrasing when discussing the convention hotel at the 6/11 city council meeting) that later iterations of the City Council opt to deviate from the City Council Resolution which was concurrent with the MAPS 3 vote.

On Shadid's Mayoral Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ShadidForOKC), I said,


I am more than happy to "like" this page.

That said, I am less-than-present able to throw my support to Ed for mayor before I learn who his opponents may be and what their various positions are. In my blog and otherwise, I have made myself very clear that I admire Ed Shadid very highly and I am working on a blog post about the convention center hotel post right now which features Ed in a most favorable light.

That said, I am strongly opposed to Ed's earlier remarks at the Farmers Market which appear to rather clearly have said that he favors re-evaluation of the downtown streetcar component of MAPS 3 in favor of rubber-tire cars.

Whether my analysis of his substantive remarks at Farmers Market are correct, or whether he might address the streetcar matter today differently, is NOT the point.

The point IS that city voters cast their votes in the MAPS3 campaign. One of the most highly favored components of MAPS3 was the downtown streetcar. Given the ballot issues (too long to restate here), it is sufficient to say that the voters have cast their ballots, and the streetcar was approved as part of MAPS 3.

Whether decided rightly or wrongly, the matter has been decided.

The integrity of the MAPS process is what's involved here, particularly because of the nuances involved in the MAPS3 vote. If the City Council were to negate the public vote, which pretty much took it on faith that the city council would deliver on its accompanying MAPS 3 resolution, the blow to public faith in the premise that the city would deliver on its promises would be shot to hell.

Were Ed to speak again and assure voters that he would stand firm in assuring voters that under his administration as mayor that he would be vigilant in attempting to insure that the council resolution which accompanied the MAPS3 vote would be put into place, well then, Ed would most likely receive my unqualified support for mayor. Until then, I remain undecided. (emphasis added)

And that is where I am at this moment. I need more information directly from Shadid (by that, I mean not via Steve's blog which quoted him but by one or more statements by Shadid himself) before reaching a conclusion.

My hope (since I very much like Ed Shadid and what he forthrightly stands for ... transparency, etc .)... is that Ed Shadid will present statements which will show him as not attempting to circumvent the MAPS 3 vote ... and it will not be enough to say that, in the MAPS 3 vote, the voters did NOT actually approve any projects. While that is true, in and of itself, such a statement does not actually represent "the truth" ... voters knew what they were voting for, notwithstanding the ambiguities of the ballot and concurrent council resolution. As I have said before, more or less, voters were told, "trust me ... these are the projects, and they will get done."

You need to take a trip up the pike. A young man by the name of Sir Paul just played a couple nights stand there.

I'm sorry, I don't care to measure my city's success on what artists come play at your venues, but rather how vibrant is your economy and are there jobs and development present moving the city forward.

Nuts. I thought I'd coined a phrase for Mayor Cornett's reelection campaign.

Soonerguru, you hit a point that needs to re-emphasised. Any politican can ask tough questions, but that isn't their job - that is the public's job. Politicians are supposed to provide answers to the tough questions.

Soonerguru, you hit a point that needs to re-emphasised. Any politican can ask tough questions, but that isn't their job - that is the public's job. Politicians are supposed to provide answers to the tough questions.

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

My view of Cornett is that he has done an excellent job of representing OKC on a national stage (probably the best of any mayor in recent history). He is analytical and politically savvy and does not create unnecessary rancor and division. Does that mean he hasn't made mistakes? No. But he has a great temperament for the job; he has far exceeded my expectations.

OKC is such a different city now, for the better. Sure, we still have some comfy good-ole-boy politics, we still see poor design and planning, we still have many unmet needs. But OKC is also a booming city that is a genuinely desired location for both residents and employers today. It's got momentum and it has had steady, (mostly) unpartisan leadership that seems to work well together. Citizens, when surveyed, trust the city government. They also are very happy for the most part with the direction the city is moving in.

When I see campaign slogans centering around "change," it would indicate there's this groundswell of support among citizens to redirect the way we're doing things. But there's not. Why would we want to radically change something that's very visibly working well in the historical context?

Perhaps instead of "change," the prevailing mood should be "continued improvement," because that is what we all want to see.

As we await word of the new tower downtown, the AT*T announcement, other job announcements, the explosion of new MAPS construction, etc., let's remember that all of this successful momentum could be halted or even reversed if we saw a radical change in tone from our city leadership, if we were to see visible division on the council, if our citizens who would normally be generally supportive of others and their goals were to become divided. Who wants to go there? Not me.

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

My view of Cornett is that he has done an excellent job of representing OKC on a national stage (probably the best of any mayor in recent history). He is analytical and politically savvy and does not create unnecessary rancor and division. Does that mean he hasn't made mistakes? No. But he has a great temperament for the job; he has far exceeded my expectations.

OKC is such a different city now, for the better. Sure, we still have some comfy good-ole-boy politics, we still see poor design and planning, we still have many unmet needs. But OKC is a booming city that is a desired locale for both residents and employers today. It's got momentum and it has had steady, (mostly) unpartisan leadership that seems to work well together. Citizens, when surveyed, trust the city government. They also are very happy for the most part with the direction the city is moving in.

When I see campaign slogans centering around "change," it would indicate there's this groundswell of support among citizens to redirect the way we're doing things. But there's not. Why would we want to radically change something that's very visibly working well in the historical context?

Perhaps instead of "change," the prevailing mood should be "continued improvement," because that is what we all want to see.

As we await word of the new tower downtown, the AT*T announcement, other job announcements, the explosion of new MAPS construction, etc., let's remember that all of this successful momentum could be halted or even reversed if we saw a radical change in tone from our city leadership, if we were to see visible division on the council, if our citizens who would normally be generally supportive of others and their goals were to become divided. Who wants to go there? Not me.

This is a fantastic post.

And honestly, it seems that many of the problems that do occur in our city are as much a result of the non-elected officials as they are the elected ones. Obviously elected officials are at least partially responsible for their appointees, but that doesn't mean that they should bear the brunt of criticism when something goes awry. If we are to "change" anything, I would like us to try and open up at least some seats on the planning committees that are currently appointed. It seems many of the problems are a result of systemic issues rather than individual failure.

I still remember when I moved to OKC in the early 90s. This city couldn't even pass school bond issues. Many (if not most) of the schools didn't even have air conditioning (insane, I know). Crime was rampant. Inner-city neighborhoods were gang infested and deteriorating. Downtown was a weed-riddled ghost town (who can forget the huge empty lot overgrown with weeds across the street from our convention center, the site of the Renaissance Hotel today?). We had only one downtown hotel operational and it was a dump. The airport was ugly. There was no water in the river. There were only a handful of good upscale restaurants. Plaza Court was about to close to disrepair. Deep Deuce was a vacant area featuring heroin "shooting galleries." Residents here didn't even identify with Oklahoma City; they were more likely to tell you they lived in "Warr Acres," "Bethany" or "Nichols Hills." No one wanted to fess up to living here. Sure, it still had its charms (and some of the landmarks we've since lost), but quite honestly Oklahoma City was a "whoever leaves last please turn out the lights" kind of city with zero momentum and a total absence of civic pride.

Perhaps we've gotten spoiled with the successes of late but these successes have been built upon by good, steady leadership, an ounce of vision, an involved business community, and now, with a bunch of dedicated citizens who support this continued improvement. No one has to apologize for being from OKC now. Let's not forget how far we've come and how much we stand to lose if our momentum is halted.

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

I have worked as a consultant and as an executive in charge, and I can tell you it is much easier to be the consultant who identifies the problems. And, it is even fairly easy to come up with workable solutions. BUT...the actual implementation is much harder. As you point out, getting buy in and constructive support from those who did not initially support the ideas, from various interest, etc., is not easy. Unless you are a dictator with no fear of backlash, you cannot escape the fact that you have to work with people to get things done. You have to lead, not just create discontent. You have to heal, not just carve. That is the challenge Ed will have. He will have to change, and that isn't easy. Zebras just don't become quarter-horses and win the races.

Sir Paul has played here before also....not only that, when he did his infamous Route 66 trip in the '76 Broncho he made it a point to spend the night at the Skirvin and had dinner at Nonas.

Yes. Most of the acts that book at BOK have already played OKC at least once. It's just another example of the easily debunked myths that are often tossed around in the strange Tulsa v. OKC culture wars.

To clarify a bit, I think it's fine for a political leader to ask tough questions. But if that's all you get from that politician, you're not getting leadership. All of us here would make excellent politicians if we were there merely to ask questions.

It's much more difficult to identify a problem, craft a solution, compromise, build consensus, and win support for your solution from people who may be adversarial. It is an art, and it requires a temperament few people have.

My view of Cornett is that he has done an excellent job of representing OKC on a national stage (probably the best of any mayor in recent history). He is analytical and politically savvy and does not create unnecessary rancor and division. Does that mean he hasn't made mistakes? No. But he has a great temperament for the job; he has far exceeded my expectations.

OKC is such a different city now, for the better. Sure, we still have some comfy good-ole-boy politics, we still see poor design and planning, we still have many unmet needs. But OKC is also a booming city that is a genuinely desired location for both residents and employers today. It's got momentum and it has had steady, (mostly) unpartisan leadership that seems to work well together. Citizens, when surveyed, trust the city government. They also are very happy for the most part with the direction the city is moving in.

When I see campaign slogans centering around "change," it would indicate there's this groundswell of support among citizens to redirect the way we're doing things. But there's not. Why would we want to radically change something that's very visibly working well in the historical context?

Perhaps instead of "change," the prevailing mood should be "continued improvement," because that is what we all want to see.

As we await word of the new tower downtown, the AT*T announcement, other job announcements, the explosion of new MAPS construction, etc., let's remember that all of this successful momentum could be halted or even reversed if we saw a radical change in tone from our city leadership, if we were to see visible division on the council, if our citizens who would normally be generally supportive of others and their goals were to become divided. Who wants to go there? Not me.

I agree with Teo, this is a fantastic post and I could not agree more or say it any better!

I don't want to go there either.

The mere thought of losing our momentum makes me ill.

Were Ed to speak again and assure voters that he would stand firm in assuring voters that under his administration as mayor that he would be vigilant in attempting to insure that the council resolution which accompanied the MAPS3 vote would be put into place, well then, Ed would most likely receive my unqualified support for mayor.

The only problem is that this is exactly what he tried to do in his council campaign. I was all for the guy until he started bashing MAPS 3 in his campaign. Then he totally backed off and said he fully supported MAPS 3, so I voted for him. But now he seems to really be working against it. If he came out said what you wrote above, I simply wouldn't believe him at this point.

I love his resistance to rubber stamp anything along with his calls for much more transparency and public interaction. However, sometimes it seems to be that the process is his only concern. I'm usually not sure what his actual end game is.

He also seems to be part of the "but what about me" movement that actually questions our recent history of investing in major projects downtown. I can not even begin to grasp this line of thinking and really resent its implications.

The streetcar will probably lose it for him. Mainly because no once can figure out what he wants it to be. I know he wants a better bus system, and I am all for that, but I have no idea why he wraps the streetcar up in that discussion in a negative way. If anything the street car should help the bus system.

With OKC's 'weak mayor' form of government, how much damage could he really do? It seems a lot of people like the guy because he is a social progressive. I am a tad nervous that he might actually get in.

With OKC's 'weak mayor' form of government, how much damage could he really do? It seems a lot of people like the guy because he is a social progressive. I am a tad nervous that he might actually get in.

Oh, he can do a lot, primarily through appointments. But can you imagine if every weekly council meeting began with some crusade? If you watch the way Mick handles things, it runs very smoothly. It could be very entertaining in a way, that is if you don't care what happens to OKC.

What's sad about this to me is that I see eye to eye with Shadid on many issues, it's just his whole approach (and ideological rigidity) that have really turned me off. It's a shame because he had a chance to do many great things with a lot of people supporting him. That support has eroded quite a bit. He seems to lack discipline to really prioritize what battles to wage -- he spread himself too thin too early on and then just seemed to kind of drift in multiple directions. A passionate Don Quixote lacking the ability to work well with others (and quite willing to turn his back on people who worked hard to help him get elected).

As a progressive voter who is pragmatic enough to understand that I can't have my way all the time, I find it highly embarrassing to watch. This city hasn't elected many progressives of late and it's unfortunate that this is now what people are going to equate with progressive politics.

Ed Shadid will run for mayor of Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/ed-shadid-will-run-for-mayor-of-oklahoma-city/article/3855902)

I voted for Mr. Shadid, but if the information over at OKC.gov is correct, it means he won't complete the Council 4-year term for which he was elected in 2011. I think he has been a good Councilman and has represented his constituents views. However, he doesn't strike me as someone that has the ability to build a coalition on the horseshoe. For good or bad, OKC doesn't have a "strong" mayor form of government. the Mayor is a figurehead and just one vote of 9. Council sets policy and the person really running the City is the City Manager (who implements what he often recommends to the Council to pass). If you really want change for the better in OKC, we need to get rid of the City Manger. But only the COuncil can do that. But getting back to my original thought, if Shadid doesn't complete his term, he has violated the most basic of promises to the voters. Others that I had voted for in the past did the same thing, and I vowed to never vote for them again. If they can't keep the most basic promise, how can we expect them to do the rest? Others in the list included: Mayor Kirk Humphreys, County Commissioner Jim Roth etc. While I wish them well in any future endeavors, it will be without my vote. This may be where my Councilman and I part ways.

Ed Shadid scares me.

This may not be a popular thing to say, but Tulsa does have some significant cultural advantages over OKC or at least once did. However they have been rather stagnant for the past decade in Tulsa while things have been really happening for OKC. A lot of people in Tulsa blame their mayor who I think was recently ousted. I would hate to see OKC go down a similar path.
No, Mayor Bartlett was not ousted. But he has to run for reelection against former Tulsa mayor Kathy Taylor, who probably wasn't as unpopular as mayor as is Bartlett now.