Haha Meg Salyer fights back....

So, simple question, is Ed right about this? Or is it a case of, "Well he's right, but we don't want anything to upset anybody." This is an honest question, too.

So, simple question, is Ed right about this? Or is it a case of, "Well he's right, but we don't want anything to upset anybody." This is an honest question, too.

is he right that that maps 3 vote was illegal? no he is not

Haha Meg Salyer fights back....

as she should .. good for her and great comments by Larry McAtee (which is the norm)

as she should .. good for her and great comments by Larry McAtee (which is the norm)

I really appreciate Larry McAtee as a councilman.

So, simple question, is Ed right about this? Or is it a case of, "Well he's right, but we don't want anything to upset anybody." This is an honest question, too.

David Slane hasn't posted his letter to Council/Mayor about the unconstitutionality, so it's tough to say what their legal basis is for such a claim. The general consensus is that it's not logrolling, because it was simply for "capital improvements". The City passed a Resolution stating that they'd do certain things with the money, but that wasn't on the ballot, therefor the ballot is a single-item vote.

If people really cared, why didn't they challenge the tax as soon as it was being collected in April 2010, or when it was on the ballot?

I think I'm actually growing to hate, literally hate, Ed Shadid not only as a mayoral candidate, but as a person the longer this drags on.

He should move to Tulsa where this type of crap is more considered acceptable.

This is crap. I was sitting on the fence for this, but I just signed up to volunteer for Mick's campaign, and I may just throw in some cash as well. This guy cannot get anywhere close to the mayor's seat. The fact that he is even in this race stirring up stuff like this in of itself is damaging to the city.

This is crap. I was sitting on the fence for this, but I just signed up to volunteer for Mick's campaign, and I may just throw in some cash as well. This guy cannot get anywhere close to the mayor's seat. The fact that he is even in this race stirring up stuff like this in of itself is damaging to the city.

I'm signing up right now as well.

The whole idea that Ed Shadid wants to derail MAPS 3 after it was overwhelmingly favored by a majority of the electorate is astonishing. I mean, it's one thing to be against something within the citygovernment, but once something has been approved by a vote of the public, it should no longer be an issue of whether you're going to go forward with the issue. A majority of the public has spoken, and to do anything contrary to that is very very very scary. Makes me not trust Ed Shadid one bit. If we can't trust him with a majority vote of the people, what can we trust him with? The guy is unstable, pure and simple.

I had a bit of a revelation on my visit to town a couple of weeks ago...

I am continually struck by the pride people have in the City; how excited they are about what has happened and what is to come. It's universal, even among those in the suburbs.

In many ways, Boosterism is perhaps OKC's greatest and most unique asset.

And at the same time it represents a huge obstacle.


Criticism -- even the constructive variety -- is roundly frowned upon in OKC. Criticism is NOT the same thing as negativity! Often, a critical eye comes from those who want better for the community.

But there doesn't seem any room for this type of discussion, at least not through the traditional channels.

That's not a good thing. Yes, we've come a long way but we are still lightyears behind a lot of other communities. Improvements on what we've had and done in the past does not equate to excellence in any comparative sense.

I love Oklahoma City as much as anyone and yet it hurts me deeply to see the low standards the masses are too often willing to accept. Particularly if those standards are being put forth by someone with good intentions and who is perceived as being "nice".


Frankly, I don't give a flip how nice someone is when it comes to making key decisions about the community. Being RESPECTFUL is important, but *nice* is just nice and too often that is seen as good enough in OKC.


This is where OKCTalk can play and has played an important role.

About 95% of what is posted here is excitement over all the great changes but there is also room and need to challenge the status quo.

Many of us live, have lived or have traveled extensively elsewhere. We see great examples of how things could be and ask out loud why we don't demand the same for the city we all love.


Boosterism is great but we have the potential to build not just something better but something GREAT. And that requires that a segment of the activist community put forth constructive and respectful criticism as a service to Oklahoma City without being made some sort of community pariah.

Simply put, better is not always good enough and we need more, active, intelligent voices advancing this message.


(BTW, in no means are these comments meant as an endorsement of Ed Shadid or Mayor Cornett.)

Pete, I'm going to call you out here. You seem to be so cautiously trying to ride the fence on this issue. Almost as if you're trying to be PC here or something. Let your colors out here. Let us know what side you support.

Ed Shadid could care less about the future of OKC. All he care about is stirring the pot and wreaking havoc. Then once the place has burned down, he'll be off to the next spot.

I think this speech sums up what you just said Patrick:

Burma - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgeAQioXyYA)

David Slane's letter: Atty. David Slane's letter to Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett over MAPS 3 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/164056344/Atty-David-Slane-s-letter-to-Oklahoma-City-Mayor-Mick-Cornett-over-MAPS-3)

Once again, I have to ask, why didn't he care 3.5 years ago when we voted on it?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell that, if he sues, the case could come down to what the definition of "single subject" is. To me, Capital Improvements are a single subject.

So I'm reading a few of the last few posts and am I gathering that some people think Cornett is too nice and complacent with where OKC is today? I've never got that vibe at all.

David Slane's letter: Atty. David Slane's letter to Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett over MAPS 3 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/164056344/Atty-David-Slane-s-letter-to-Oklahoma-City-Mayor-Mick-Cornett-over-MAPS-3)

Once again, I have to ask, why didn't he care 3.5 years ago when we voted on it?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell that, if he sues, the case could come down to what the definition of "single subject" is. To me, Capital Improvements are a single subject.

Why doesn't he stick to defending sex offenders?

WOW! Tusla style politics here we come!

To:Mayor Mick Cornett
200 N. Walker, 3rd Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Kenneth Jordan,Municipal Counselor
1200 N. Walker Oklahoma City, OK 73102

From David R. Slane,Attorney

RE:MAPS 3 Initiative August 29, 2013

Dear Mr. Mayor,

It comes to my attention that the MAPS 3 Initiative, as passed, is likely unconstitutional. It appears, based on the opinions of the team of attorneys with whom I work, that the ballot likely violated the single subject law. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a series of decisions, has ruled that various laws of this same nature are unconstitutional. It appears the purpose of the rule is to avoid log rolling whereby a legislator or tax paying citizen would cast an all or nothing vote.

The mayor and city council were well aware of this on the basis of news reports regarding MAPS 1 and the legal opinion it likely violated. Then, in similar fashion, MAPS For Kids rendered the same effect, and MAPS 3 followed suit identically. Mayor Cornett went as far as to state publicly that they were submitting all or nothing votes because that is what they are comfortable with.

It appears the city council then followed with an eight-project proposition in the non-binding resolution, again, in violation of the single subject rule. I am a long-time citizen of Oklahoma City and a graduate of Southeast High School. While I supported idea of the MAPS initiative, I primarily support the law.

I would prefer to avoid a constitutional challenge if there is a way for the city attorneys and my team of lawyers to work collaboratively to make this resolution and initiative legal. It is clearly in that cooperative spirit that I send this letter. However, make no mistake that, should you decide to not attempt to fix this, I am prepared to take action through the courts to render MAPS 3 unconstitutional and to seek a restraining order to stop the collection of sales tax and all future allocation of the $777million in taxpayer revenue.

I am hopeful that you will respond to this letter by the close of business September 3, 2013. Should you opt to not respond, we will file a petition in court asking the courts to declare MAPS3 unconstitutional.

Sincerely,

David R. Slane, Attorney

What is he hoping to gain by this? What does he expect Cornett to do to "fix this"? THE F@#KING VOTE PASSED ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO AND HAS BEEN COLLECTING TAXES FOR 3.5 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It comes to my attention that the MAPS 3 Initiative, as passed, is likely unconstitutional."

THEN BRING IT UP BEFORE OR JUST AFTER IT PASSED!

I don't know how much more single subject you can get. We voted for MAPS 3 for "capital improvements" believing in good faith that the city would follow through with the projects. That's the whole reason that the projects weren't included in the ballot, unlike the previous MAPS 1. How is MAPS 3 any different that say the bond issue that we passed? OR a bond issue for the OKc Public Schools?

So.. apparently the only way to stop MAPS 3 in this way is to file a formal request for a formal court ordered injunction.

And then they would have to prove their case pretty strongly.

The pitfall for them is that if they were to go to court and lose, they would be liable for costs associated with ongoing MAPS 3 projects; lost contracts, damages and such.

So this is a pure political monster.

I'm finding it frustrating that I have no other way to vent my anger at Shadid than by typing it on this board.

I don't want to see maps 3 go away but it's pretty clear the city council was playing cutesy with the law by having the ballot simply state capital improvements followed up by a resolution from the council (before the maps vote) enumerating the projects and them campaigning for a yes vote with that list of projects. At the time I thought the ballot quite odd given it didn't list all the projects being touted but now it makes sense.

As far as I'm concerned its way too late to call foul now.

I'm finding it frustrating that I have no other way to vent my anger at Shadid than by typing it on this board.

huih gklahqgot[ewqh0g9[rhwgow[iog hqo[eq hqo hqog [hqor[q hq[giorqegh[ohrqeoghre[ogrhe[ogqerh[ogrqeh[oq

That helps a little.

Many of us, including me, were worried a Mayor Shadid would be a blow to the progress this city has made and to the MAPS programs in generals. It's now clear Shadid is doing damage to both just by running for mayor. This lawsuit is nothing but an asinine tool for Shadid to implement his campaign strategy that revolves around conspiracy theories and misleading the voters. Like many on this board, I was hopeful for Shadid after he was first elected. After speaking with him on a couple occassions since he launched his campaign and reading the information people have posted here, I'm honestly worried the guy is just a megalomaniacal nutcase.

I've volunteered for Cornett and I can't wait to get to work.

I don't want to see maps 3 go away but it's pretty clear the city council was playing cutesy with the law by having the ballot simply stare capital improvements followed up by a resolution from the council (before the maps vote) enumerating the projects and them campaigning for a yes vote with that list of projects. At the time I thought the ballot quite odd given it didn't list all the projects being touted but now it makes sense.

As far as I'm concerned its way too late to call foul now.

Exactly...where was all the legal concern over the last 5 years or really the last 20? What's changed this year? oh wait...Ed Shadid running for mayor. I read the ballot and followed all of the information on MAPS leading up to the vote. I knew what I was voting for. If you have issues now and either did not pay attention and voted or in Dumba** Ed Shadid's case, didn't vote at all, that is on you. It was all layed out in front of us...you would have to be a moron to feel "misled". Way too late in the game to cry about it when the timeline is nearing the halfway point. Crap like this is why Tulsa can't ever get anything done.

Here's to Shadid being burned at the stake. I'll be leading an angry mob to his house later with torches and pitchforks, feel free to join...we're taking the bus.
(obvious sarcasm, I think?)

Andrew Speno gets job setting up publicity (interviews with various reporters presenting Slane as an expert on various legal matters) for Slane. Speno gets job working for Ed Shadid. Slane interviews Shadid on radio show on an obscure AM station. Shadid questions legality of MAPS 3 ballot. Slane threatens lawsuit.

I just emailed my councilman (Greiner) and asked him to please think twice about supporting Shadid for mayor.

What a monster....

Believe you me, he tried to make the case for deception yesterday at council. All about how the ballot was written and how the voters were deceived into being told that the ballot had to be constructed as it was. We've already hashed this before. And by the way, the "Not this MAPS" campaign did everything they could to try to convince the voters that the ballot process was flawed. ...[/B]
Shadid is absolutely correct on those points. The Ballot was more than flawed, it is unconstitutional (log rolling). Heck, even a City legal guy admitted that the original MAPS ballot was also probably illegal but no one challenged it. The Mayor and his spokesman stated that they would adhere to the law, and that

"Each of these projects is going to have to stand on its own.”
Oklahoma City MAPS out big plans | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-out-big-plans/article/3402004) (implying that each project would be a separate proposition. Then the Ballot came out. No mention of ANY of the projects. No mention of ANY of the projects in the Ordinance. The reason the Mayor gave as to why they used the all-or-nothing illegal ballot format again?


Mayor Mick Cornett, who has spearheaded the MAPS 3 initiative, said an all-or-nothing approach for MAPS 3 was chosen because it has worked with voters in the past. "This is the process they are going to be comfortable with,” Cornett said.

Oklahoman (September 29, 2009)

Andrew Speno gets job setting up publicity (interviews with various reporters presenting Slane as an expert on various legal matters) for Slane. Speno gets job working for Ed Shadid. Slane interviews Shadid on radio show on an obscure AM station. Shadid questions legality of MAPS 3 ballot. Slane threatens lawsuit.

Thanks for the appearance Steve...this is absolutely how I figured this went down. What a crock of Sh**

Not a huge link but Slade has a tweet calling Shadid the future mayor of Oklahoma City.

Shadid is absolutely correct on those points. The Ballot was more than flawed, it is unconstitutional (log rolling). Heck, even a City legal guy admitted that the original MAPS ballot was also probably illegal but no one challenged it. The Mayor and his spokesman stated that they would adhere to the law, and that
Oklahoma City MAPS out big plans | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-out-big-plans/article/3402004) (implying that each project would be a separate proposition. Then the Ballot came out. No mention of ANY of the projects. No mention of ANY of the projects in the Ordinance. The reason the Mayor gave as to why they used the all-or-nothing illegal ballot format again?

Oklahoman (September 29, 2009)

Larry, welcome back...congratulations, you're finallly getting your wish...someone is Challenging MAPS! Yay! I'm so happy for you.

I don't know how much more single subject you can get. We voted for MAPS 3 for "capital improvements" believing in good faith that the city would follow through with the projects. That's the whole reason that the projects weren't included in the ballot, unlike the previous MAPS 1. How is MAPS 3 any different that say the bond issue that we passed? OR a bond issue for the OKc Public Schools?
Exactly. Why wasn't MAPS 3 done like Bond Issue elections where each like-kind project (Roads, Parks etc) is listed and voted on separately. Since none of the MAPS 3 projects are "like kind", it requires that each one be listed individually. Using an extremely vague "capital improvements" label doesn't solve the problem.

It appears the city council then followed with an eight-project proposition in the non-binding resolution, again, in violation of the single subject rule.

What constitutes a "Single Subject Rule"? Does "Capital Improvements" not read as a single subject? I thought that is how they got around this part?

Exactly. Why wasn't MAPS 3 done like Bond Issue elections where each like-kind project (Roads, Parks etc) is listed and voted on separately. Since none of the MAPS 3 projects are "like kind", it requires that each one be listed individually. Using an extremely vague "capital improvements" label doesn't solve the problem.

When I voted for the 2007 GO Bond issue, I did't have the option to vote on line items seperately, I am 95% sure it was all together, much like MAPS.

It was all layed out in front of us...you would have to be a moron to feel "misled". Way too late in the game to cry about it when the timeline is nearing the halfway point. Crap like this is why Tulsa can't ever get anything done.


Jackpot...you lived under a rock in the fall of 2009 if you voted for MAPS 3 and didn't know what you were voting for.

Jackpot...you lived under a rock in the fall of 2009 if you voted for MAPS 3 and didn't know what you were voting for.

Correct, information was available freaking everywhere from the proponents of MAPS AND plenty of those opposed to it.

is he right that that maps 3 vote was illegal? no he is not

Yes he is, the City's legal guy admits it...watch the video Sid posted in #582

When I voted for the 2007 GO Bond issue, I did't have the option to vote on line items seperately, I am 95% sure it was all together, much like MAPS.

You are incorrect. there were 11 Propositions, voted on separetly

The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election (http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/)
2007 City Bond Election

PROPOSITION 1 (STREETS) $497,490,000
PROPOSITION 2 (BRIDGES) $19,760,000
PROPOSITION 3 (TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM) $23,590,000
PROPOSITION 4 (DRAINAGE CONTROL SYSTEM) $32,855,000
PROPOSITION 5 (PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES) $89,755,000
PROPOSITION 6 (FIRE) $15,000,000
PROPOSITION 7 (POLICE) $41,200,000
PROPOSITION 8 (LIBRARIES) $12,845,000
PROPOSITION 9 (CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITIES) $20,165,000
PROPOSITION 10 (TRANSIT) $7,840,000
PROPOSITION 11 (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) $75,000,000

Yes he is, the City's legal guy admits it...watch the video Sid posted in #582

Nope he said the original maps vote was probably illegal. He did not conclude the maps3 vote was illegal (especially considering he was the one who made the ballot).

Ed is clearly demonstrating that he doesn't care about democratic principles, the voters or Oklahoma City. I think we are getting an early view of what a ghastly mayor he would be. He's very good at breaking things, but that's not what I want my leader to do. I want my leader to be a nonpartisan builder of bridges.

What is he hoping to gain by this? What does he expect Cornett to do to "fix this"? THE F@#KING VOTE PASSED ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO AND HAS BEEN COLLECTING TAXES FOR 3.5 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It comes to my attention that the MAPS 3 Initiative, as passed, is likely unconstitutional."

THEN BRING IT UP BEFORE OR JUST AFTER IT PASSED!

Because this is politics. Shadid wants to plant seeds of doubt and create demons that don't exist. Again, if they do formally pursue an actual injunction and lost, they would be libel for the actual costs in ongoing skewed projects.

The vote was an endorsement by the voters in their duly elected to council to carry out the projects that they promoted.

Call it "log rolling on the backside" if you want, but when it gets down to the "technicality" associated with the vote, it was for capital improvements. And the voters endorsed that. All of MAPS has had to do with holding the Council accountable to the original promises made. That is why we have had so much trouble with Shadid in regard to the streetcar and his ongoing efforts to pillage our funds.

Nope he said the original maps vote was probably illegal. He did not conclude the maps3 vote was illegal (especially considering he was the one who made the ballot).

Maybe Ed's lawyers can sue for a refund on MAPS 1.

Because this is politics. Shadid wants to plant seeds of doubt and create demons that don't exist. Again, if they do formally pursue an actual injunction and lost, they would be libel for the actual costs in ongoing skewed projects.

The vote was an endorsement by the voters in their duly elected to council to carry out the projects that they promoted.

Call it "log rolling on the backside" if you want, but when it gets down to the "technicality" associated with the vote, it was for capital improvements. And the voters endorsed that. All of MAPS has had to do with holding the Council accountable to the original promises made. That is why we have had so much trouble with Shadid in regard to the streetcar and his ongoing efforts to pillage our funds.

Now everyone who questioned the city council about why they did the ballot the way did has their answer. There would not have been a MAPS 3 if they had written the ballot the way some here have suggested, as it would have been considered "logrolling."

It was hard to find a purpose animating that letter other than publicity.

Nope he said the original maps vote was probably illegal. He did not conclude the maps3 vote was illegal (especially considering he was the one who made the ballot).
Yes he did! Watch the video carefully...he admitted that the correct way would have been to list the items as separate propositions...he went on to say that the Mayor & Council did the log-rolling all-or-nothing ballot as a policy move. I posted a bit ago what the reason the Mayor gave for that policy decision and it had absolutely nothing to do with the legality and the promises made by the Mayor that it would be done the way it is supposed to...

Now everyone who questioned the city council about why they did the ballot the way did has their answer. There would not have been a MAPS 3 if they had written the ballot the way some here have suggested, as it would have been considered "logrolling."
If they listed the items as SEPARATE PROPOSITIONS (just like we do with Bond Issues), it would have been legal, MAPS 3 would have still have happened. And we would know the "will of the voter" as to which projects they did/did not want. Now that doesn't mean that all of the projects would have passed (most likely the C.C. would have failed), but the that is exactly why they did the all-or-nothing ballot...they hoped that support for the projects folks said they wanted would be enough to get it passed. It barely worked.

It may come down to a legal decision. I haven't seen anyone weighing in yet here who has a J. D. and/or is a constitutional scholar.

I've been notified that my previous contribution to this thread was off the mark.
That's correct.
So let me state this correctly:
Andrew Speno gets job setting up publicity (interviews with various reporters presenting Slane as an expert on various legal matters) for Slane. Speno gets job working for Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the MAPS 3 ballot. Speno gets job working for Ed Shadid. Slane interviews Shadid on radio show on an obscure AM station. Shadid questions legality of MAPS 3 ballot. Slane threatens lawsuit.

Four years after the fact.... And it's not political?

Oklahoma City Criminal Defense Lawyer | David Slane :: Oklahoma City Criminal Defense Lawyer | David Slane (http://david-slane-criminal-defense.com/)

Hmmmm. I don't see constitutional cases on his expertise list. I'm glad to know who I can call to defend me if I'm indicted for racketeering or sex crimes though.

Good to have you back in the conversation Steve. As long as you're here connecting dots for the rest of us, how about connecting some in Doug's assertion that your former boss and the mayor conspired to keep any negative reporting about M3 out of print. Now, I know that the majority on here couldn't care less, but it would be interesting to hear about anyway. You know, as long as you're out to champion the truth and all.

Good to have you back in the conversation Steve. As long as you're here connecting dots for the rest of us, how about connecting some in Doug's assertion that your former boss and the mayor conspired to keep any negative reporting about M3 out of print. Now, I know that the majority on here couldn't care less, but it would be interesting to hear about anyway. You know, as long as you're out to champion the truth and all.

So I take it you're cool with him getting fired for disclosing that here (assuming there is something to disclose)...

And you're right, count me as someone who doesn't care at all about that.

So I take it you're cool with him getting fired for disclosing that here (assuming there is something to disclose)...

And you're right, count me as someone who doesn't care at all about that.

No, I don't want him to get fired. I want him to tell us everything from behind the scenes so we can make an informed decision. You know, be an impartial purveyor of info. As it is he just comes off as an information agent for one side. Besides, that guys gone. Steve has nothing to fear from him, right?

It would seem Shadid's point during that city council meeting was that logrolling was not the only option for voting, but was presented as such. I know many citizens who were torn about the MAPS 3 election because they really liked a few of the projects but did not like others. It would have been nice if the citizens could have voted for each project separately since many were not vetted. I don't fault Shadid for not voting if it was out of ambivalence to the process.

It would seem Shadid's point during that city council meeting was that logrolling was not the only option for voting, but was presented as such. I know many citizens who were torn about the MAPS 3 election because they really liked a few of the projects but did not like others. It would have been nice if the citizens could have voted for each project separately since many were not vetted. I don't fault Shadid for not voting if it was out of ambivalence to the process.

So you're OK with him having lawyers sue to stop MAPS 3?

And by the way, the whole point of MAPS is to put lots of projects on there; not everyone is going to support the same ones. And, some are simply not sexy, but may pay good dividends, such as the Fairgrounds improvements.

The whole point of MAPS is to put a number of projects on one ballot. Other cities do it the way you suggest and fail. I'll take OKC's track record of success.

Again, you seem to ignore the fact that the mayoral candidate you support is threatening legal action to blow up our city's biggest economic development initiative.

It would seem Shadid's point during that city council meeting was that logrolling was not the only option for voting, but was presented as such. I know many citizens who were torn about the MAPS 3 election because they really liked a few of the projects but did not like others. It would have been nice if the citizens could have voted for each project separately since many were not vetted. I don't fault Shadid for not voting if it was out of ambivalence to the process.

If he didn't like it, he should have voted no and brought all of these objections to the table 4 years ago. He chose not to vote and waited until halfway through the funding period to do this, he has no credibility in my mind.

Additionally, if the public was truly opposed to it and wanted the projects listed individually, the majority could've voted no and the city could've brought the ballot back listing each project individually. The majority voted yes, that should've been the end of it.

It would seem Shadid's point during that city council meeting was that logrolling was not the only option for voting, but was presented as such. I know many citizens who were torn about the MAPS 3 election because they really liked a few of the projects but did not like others. It would have been nice if the citizens could have voted for each project separately since many were not vetted. I don't fault Shadid for not voting if it was out of ambivalence to the process.

Shadid didn't vote in a single election after he moved back to Oklahoma City until he presumably voted for himself for City Council. If he's saying he didn't vote because of ambivalence about the process, that's spin.

So you're OK with him having lawyers sue to stop MAPS 3?

And by the way, the whole point of MAPS is to put lots of projects on there; not everyone is going to support the same ones. And, some are simply not sexy, but may pay good dividends, such as the Fairgrounds improvements.

The whole point of MAPS is to put a number of projects on one ballot. Other cities do it the way you suggest and fail. I'll take OKC's track record of success.

Again, you seem to ignore the fact that the mayoral candidate you support is threatening legal action to blow up our city's biggest economic development initiative.

Perhaps he is trying to save us from the biggest economic blunder in OKC's history. People can and do see that way as well. Regardless of opinions on maps 3 its probably safe to say that the only way to defeat Cornett is to turn his greatest strength (MAPS 3) into his greatest weakness which appears is exactly what Shaddid is attempting to do. I doubt he'll pull it off but it's probably his only hope.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this goes to court, as I've read here, is this how it'll play out:

- tax is suspended
- goes to court
- if the suit fails, the plaintiffs are liable for lost sales tax revenue, and any other damages caused by suspension of projects

If that's the case, I wonder if as someone said this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. It'd take some huge balls to take that suit to court and then lose.