My neighborhood, located in Ward 1, recently held a neighbors night out, as they have every year. It's not very big; approximately 50 people show up, if even that. The police and fire department attend every year, bringing a couple of trucks for the kids to climb on. This year, much to my surprise, Mayor Cornett's opponent showed up with 3 or 4 of his cronies to work the crowd in their "TRUSTED" shirts. He also made a speech about the importance of neighborhoods and disdain for "special interest" as well as the lack of public safety. He promised to set a time in the future to come back and hold a more in-depth discussion. This was not a brief cameo; his team was there for the duration, some working the crowd, some glued to his coat tails. From what I observed, he spent a great deal of his time chatting with the fireman at length.

From the gazette:

City officials respond to MAPS 3 legal challenge

Tim Farley
September 3rd, 2013

An attorney challenging the constitutionality of the MAPS 3 vote has promised to reconsider his fight against Oklahoma City.

City officials sent a letter Tuesday to private attorney David Slane outlining the reasons his concerns are misplaced. Slane alleged the December 2009 MAPS 3 vote was unconstitutional because it violated the state’s single-subject rule since eight different projects would be financed with the sales tax extension.

The single-subject rule came into focus for Slane when a tort reform measure approved by the Oklahoma Legislature earlier this year was ruled unconstitutional, prompting Governor Mary Fallin to call a special session.

In the letter, Municipal Counselor Kenneth Jordan wrote, “Please note that the face of the ordinance and the face of the ballot title each reflect a single subject: a sales tax levy for the limited purpose of providing city capital improvements.”

In turn, Slane issued a statement vowing to review his stance and previous legal cases involving the single-subject rule.

“We feel we have an obligation to go back to square one and reconsider, in good faith, our position,” he said.

In a telephone interview with Oklahoma Gazette, Slane also said, “We didn’t do this mean-spirited, so we need to put it on hold. The taxpayers deserve for me to go back and reconsider this again.”

Slane, known for his unpopular stances involving controversial issues, promised his legal review would take no longer than “a few days.”

Last week, Slane said he would file a lawsuit with the Oklahoma Supreme Court if city officials did not respond to a letter he sent them Aug. 29. In the letter, Slane referred to the MAPS 3 ballot as “log rolling,” whereby a legislator or taxpaying citizen would cast an all-or-nothing vote on the eight projects.

Slane said he believes OKC residents should have been able to cast separate votes on each proposal, which included a convention center, walking and biking trails, senior wellness centers, a 70-acre public park, a streetcar system and Oklahoma River and Oklahoma State Fairgrounds improvements. The projects will cost $777 million.

Although the projects were not listed on the ballot, city officials and the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce marketed the proposals as one initiative.

In his letter to city officials, Slane threatened to seek a restraining order preventing city officials from collecting the MAPS 3 tax or expending any funds from that account.

Case law

In his letter to Slane, Jordan referred specifically to a 2011 case that challenged the single-subject rule but was upheld at the trial and state Supreme Court level. The case centered on the 2007 passage of House Bill 1804, a strict immigration reform measure.

The lawsuit alleged the bill had unrelated subjects attached to it and violated the single-subject rule. However, the Supreme Court opined that Oklahoma case law adheres to the “germaneness test.”

“The most relevant question under such analysis is whether a voter (or legislator) is able to make a choice without being misled and is not forced to choose between two unrelated provisions contained in one measure,” the court wrote.

“The question is not how similar two provisions in a proposed law are, but whether it appears either that the proposal is misleading or that the provisions in the proposal are so unrelated that many of those voting on the law would be faced with an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice.”

In a separate 1993 case, the Supreme Court rejected the broad, expansive theme approach to the single-subject requirement and said “legislation satisfies the one-subject requirement if the provisions are germane, relative and cognate to one another.”

Oklahoma Gazette: News: City officials respond to MAPS 3 legal challenge (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-19179-city-officials-respond-to-maps-3-legal-challenge.html)

Mid, there's a reason God created the "ignore" function. It looks as if the anti-Mick crowd is still requiring innuendo and lies to advance their agenda.
Another snark attack.

Jill, why do you persist in doing that? You know, it's not necessary and it adds nothing to an intelligent discussion here, if anyone who participates here is interested in having such a thing. As for me, I'm still waiting on substantive statements from the candidates and that may not occur until the election campaign gets in full swing.

At the moment, I leaning to not voting for Ed ... were he behind or have supported the potential lawsuit which would have challenged the MAPS 3 vote, that would probably tell the tale for me. I've seen nothing definitive about that matter here or elsewhere so my mind remains open about that.

Should I decide to vote for Mick Cornett, it will not be because I am drawn to how he has conducted himself as mayor, because I am not so drawn, generally speaking. It will be because I value the approach taken in original MAPS approach (which clearly involved a logrolling ballot), the plain evidence that the MAPS logrolling ballot turned this city around, and that, though structurally different (the "capital improvements" ballot matched with potential chameleon-like nature of the accompanying City Council resolution), MAPS 3 essentially involves the same approach that the original MAPS did.

Doug, betts was responding to a ridiculous post that I deleted, leaving her comment completely out of context.

She was addressing Steve Hunt, not Ed Shadid. :)

Doug, betts was responding to a ridiculous post that I deleted, leaving her comment completely out of context.

She was addressing Steve Hunt, not Ed Shadid. :)
OK. Sorry about that, Betts, if I got you wrong.

It was still/nonetheless a very articulate and persuasive argument.
I know that I was convinced. (but i don't live right in OKC--only on a surrounded island--so my vote doesn't count)

At the moment, I leaning to not voting for Ed ... were he behind or have supported the potential lawsuit which would have challenged the MAPS 3 vote, that would probably tell the tale for me. I've seen nothing definitive about that matter here or elsewhere so my mind remains open about that.


his comments at council last week showed pretty clearly that he already knew about the proposed lawsuit(not to mention he has ties to the guy through his pr guy) and reading between the lines in his comments he agreed with it ..

OK. Sorry about that, Betts, if I got you wrong.

I was actually being polite. It was the last in a string of rude, incorrect (the kind word for a lie) and completely weird, out in left field comments Mr. Hunt has made about me.

Ed has made some untrue statements as well, (not about me) but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he's got so many things he's fighting, he doesn't have time to educate himself in depth on all subjects....streetcars being one.

…Should I decide to vote for Mick Cornett, ...It will be because I value the approach taken in original MAPS approach (which clearly involved a logrolling ballot), the plain evidence that the MAPS logrolling ballot turned this city around, and that, though structurally different (the "capital improvements" ballot matched with potential chameleon-like nature of the accompanying City Council resolution), MAPS 3 essentially involves the same approach that the original MAPS did.
Doug,

Please correct me if I am misreading you. Are you saying that you would vote for Cornett again because of the unconstitutional (logrolling) original MAPS approach that he and the Council "essentially" decided to use again???

Just because MAPS "turned this city around"...the end justifying the means???

As it stands I can't vote for either Mayor Cornett or my Councilman Shadid. Both because of deep-rooted , core, untruthfullness. Cornett during the MAPS 3 campaigns and Shadid for breaking the most basic promise to his constituents...that he will serve the entire term for which he was elected (if he does win the Mayorship, he can't complete his Council term). It has been brought to my attention that Cornett did the same thing when he ran for Mayor to replace Humphreys. Even though I have voted for all 3 of these men at some point or another, at least Humphreys resigned from office when he announced he was running for the Senate. Which reminds me of Cornett's failure to resign when he ran for Representative (after just winning what was described as a landslide re-election for Mayor)...



If you're willing to sacrifice MAPS on the altar of political expediency, then you're not a steward of your citizens. If you are willing to ignore or throw out decisions made by the citizens of the city you claim to represent, then you're not doing your job correctly. I don't want a mayor who doesn't care what we as citizens value. We expended a lot of energy supporting MAPS 3. A lot of people (Ed not included) acted as responsible citizens and voted. And he's willing to act as if that (and by extension we) doesn't/don't matter.
What Ed is correctly calling for is clarification/validation on what the citizens really wanted. The correct and legal way of doing it by listing the projects as separate propositions. The way the MAPS 3 ballot was written, there is no way to discern the voters wishes on which projects they did/didn't support. We have to go back to scientific and unscientific surveys & polls to try to sort that out (which can divert from the election day results). The only thing we know is that a very small minority of the electorate, barely approved a 1 cent on the dollar tax that would be levied for 7.75 years and the money be spent on something. There have been many people, including yourself, here and on other forums that insist they voted for ___________ (fill in the blank of their favorite project).

One thing that amazes me is that some folks are getting so upset over the perception (real or imagined), that Shadid is trying to redirect funds from a project…when that is EXACTLY the way it was set up! We discussed that many times on this forum, yet the response back was "we can trust them". The irony!



But Larry, neither you, nor any other MAPs3 voter, voted yea or nay on a civic center. Nor did you vote up or down on a list of projects. You just didn't do that. you voted yea or nay on whether there would be a temporary 1 cent sales tax for X months with that sales tax being dedicated to capital improvements.

The only people who voted yea or nay on a specific list of projects were the elected council folk, sitting at the horseshoe.
Exactly, I have made that point myself several times. The problem is we didn't have the option to do just that (vote on the projects separately).



Midtowner: I didn't go to any law school but even among your learned colleagues that have, there is often disagreement on the law…they are called "opinions" aren't they?

The misleading part (which the City's legal guy admitted during Shadid's questioning during the Council meeting that Sid posted), that the City was insisting that the only legal way to do the Ballot was the all-or-nothing (logrolling) format. What I think you are saying is if the original MAPS had done the same thing it would have been legal? That the only thing illegal about it was listing the projects? If that is the case, why is it not illegal to list them on bond issues?

One big difference between the two taxes that I failed to mention that may allow more leniency in specifics in what the money is to be used for, is the duration of the tax. The Public Safety tax is ongoing, so by its very nature would be less specific. the MAPS 3 tax is a "temporary" tax, and just like Bond issues (which are paid for thru taxes) are finite requires more specifics.

Single subject, maybe, but not sufficiently limited in the subject matter. It is just far too broad, vague, generic or whatever legal term you want to use.

The information you supplied clearly supported my contention, no need to tell me you are arguing my point, it is plainly obvious.

Yes or No, were the voters presented with an all-or-nothing ballot?

Larry,

You are quick to say that the original MAPS ballot was unconstitutional. Pray, tell, please cite the legal authorities for your opinion and conclusion.

My own research reflects that there is not one statute, there is no constitutional provision, and there is no appellate court opinion, which states, implies, or infers that the "single subject" provisions of state law apply to anyone other than the legislature or state bonds. If anyone, lawyer or non-lawyer, knows differently, i.e., can cite specific legal authority which states that such rules apply to municipal corporations, he/she is more than welcome to cite any such legal authority. It doesn't exist. Did I do a bad job of legal research? Could be, but I suppose I'd be asking you to prove it. I did look into this point very closely during the MAPS 3 campaign, as has been stated in my blog posts during that period of time.

But, more to your point, yes, I think that the logrolling method is a good one and has benefited our city greatly. It's not like we, the voters, didn't know what were doing. But for use of that method, the original MAPS would have almost certainly been a piece of folklore. The original MAPS vote would have been remembered just as vividly as Mayor Andy Coats' "Six To Fix" campaign ... and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about but probably not many others do ... and for good reason. I have no problem at all with an all or nothing approach when it comes to municipal sales tax elections.

Should I decide to vote for Cornett, it will be because I don't see that I have any other choice, if I am inclined to think as I just stated which, of course, I do.

...
Yes or No, were the voters presented with an all-or-nothing ballot?

Yes. the voters had one, and only one, decision. Did they want to enact a temporary 1 cent sales tax for umpteen months, the funds going to capital improvements, or did they want to say, no, we do not want to have a temporary 1 cent tax for umpteen months. It was a straight yea or nay, no two ways about it vote. it passed.

Everything else as to the pith, the non-binding resolution, all that were but examples of what the elected leaders were intending to do IF the voters said yes on their one issue .. the temporary sales tax. John Q Voter and Jane P Voter did not have to decide I am stuck with a streetcar, or a CC, or a park I do not want. That was never, ever theirs to vote on in the first place. They got to decide, and they only got to decide, will there, or will there not, be a temp sales tax dedicated to capital improvements. that's it. the rest was outside their purview.

Larry,

You are quick to say that the original MAPS ballot was unconstitutional. Pray, tell, please cite the legal authorities for your opinion and conclusion.

My own research reflects that there is not one statute, there is no constitutional provision, and there is no appellate court opinion, which states, implies, or infers that the "single subject" provisions of state law apply to anyone other than the legislature or state bonds. If anyone, lawyer or non-lawyer, knows differently, i.e., can cite specific legal authority which states that such rules apply to municipal corporations, he/she is more than welcome to cite any such legal authority. It doesn't exist. Did I do a bad job of legal research? Could be, but I suppose I'd be asking you to prove it. I did look into this point very closely during the MAPS 3 campaign, as has been stated in my blog posts during that period of time.

But, more to your point, yes, I think that the logrolling method is a good one and has benefited our city greatly. It's not like we, the voters, didn't know what were doing. But for use of that method, the original MAPS would have almost certainly been a piece of folklore. The original MAPS vote would have been remembered just as vividly as Mayor Andy Coats' "Six To Fix" campaign ... and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about but probably not many others do ... and for good reason. I have no problem at all with an all or nothing approach when it comes to municipal sales tax elections.

Should I decide to vote for Cornett, it will be because I don't see that I have any other choice, if I am inclined to think as I just stated which, of course, I do.

You mentioned that the original MAPS was most definitely logrolling (and MAPS 3 was "essentially" the same thing), so the question is, is logrolling unconstitutional? The State Supreme Court has ruled many times that it indeed is unconstitutional. One of the most recent involved tort reform that "required" the Special Session that just finished to fix it. As far as if it applies to municipalities, back before the vote, when you, Mid, and I were hashing this out, we finally came to the consensus that it did apply to political subdivisions (and not just the Legislature). In the Gazette, the City's legal guy even admitted flat out that the original MAPS was "probably" illegal...but no one challenged it in the courts. Think it is the same guy that Shadid grilled during that recent Council meeting about the MAPS 3 ballot, that the correct way would have been to list the items separately. When asked why the City didn't do that, he mentioned something about it being a "policy decision" of the Mayor/Council. Which goes right along with what the Mayor said during the campaign as to why (contrary to assurances that the law would be followed by his spokesman David Holt, and the Mayor's own statement that "each of these projects must stand on it's own") they chose the all-or-nothing ballot again because...

Oklahoman, Sept 29, 2009

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.
Hmmm, so much for the prior assurances. Completely ignoring the fact that voters are also used to separate ballot propositions. Instead more of the end justifying the means...what ever works to get the vote passed. In other words, they are going to keep using it until it fails to work or it gets challenged in court.

There is another option of voting for Cornett or Shadid (presuming there aren't any other candidates), and that is to not vote in that race at all (which is where I am at the moment). As Penn Jillette (Penn & Teller) said: "Voting For Lesser Of Two Evils Always Leads To More Evil". Now I am not suggesting that either candidate is "evil". What I am saying is until the voters hold our elected officials accountable, we are rewarding questionable behavior and the end result will be more questionable behavior.



Yes. the voters had one, and only one, decision. Did they want to enact a temporary 1 cent sales tax for umpteen months, the funds going to capital improvements, or did they want to say, no, we do not want to have a temporary 1 cent tax for umpteen months. It was a straight yea or nay, no two ways about it vote. it passed.

Everything else as to the pith, the non-binding resolution, all that were but examples of what the elected leaders were intending to do IF the voters said yes on their one issue .. the temporary sales tax. John Q Voter and Jane P Voter did not have to decide I am stuck with a streetcar, or a CC, or a park I do not want. That was never, ever theirs to vote on in the first place. They got to decide, and they only got to decide, will there, or will there not, be a temp sales tax dedicated to capital improvements. that's it. the rest was outside their purview.
And that is the core problem.

This is an interesting blog post from a blog very relevant to this thread:

"Data Shows Candidates May Have to Steal Votes From Each Other"


Data shows candidates may have to steal votes from each other | 200 Walker OKC (http://www.200walkerokc.com/?p=37)

The gist of this is that, in Shadid's district, the precincts that went heavily for Shadid in the last city council election are the same one that went heavily for Cornett in the last Mayoral election. Hence the two are drawing from the same, relatively liberal, fan base.

This being Oklahoma City, my DoctorTaco prediction then is that the candidate who successfully outlfanks the other to the right could run away with this thing. It seems like maybe Shadid, with his "us vs. them"/neighborhoods versus downtown/little guy against big government thng might be trying to tap into the Tea Party mindset/resentments, if not actually into Tea Party policy.

MAPS threat lingers

Issues remain and voters react after questions were raised about constitutionality of MAPS 3 projects.

Tim Farley
September 11th, 2013
Vowing to avoid a political battle, Oklahoma City attorney David Slane contended this week that his research into the constitutionality of the 2009 MAPS 3 measure is aimed at protecting the public. Recently, Slane and his legal team questioned whether the ballot language violated the state’s single-subject rule, which prohibits unrelated issues from being placed on a single ballot question. The MAPS 3 ballot centered on a sales tax extension that would finance eight separate projects.

Since Slane questioned the validity of the MAPS 3 election two weeks ago, OKC’s lead municipal counselor, Kenneth Jordan, delivered a letter Sept. 3 citing a 2011 state Supreme Court case, Thomas vs. Henry, that he claims validates the ballot language and election results.

In the letter to Oklahoma Gazette, Jordan said the city’s legal team used other case law, one dating as far back as 1943, to help guide the city’s decision to use the 2009 ballot language.

“The Court has remained consistent in its rulings on the single-subject test over the years, and we firmly believe that (the) ordinance and ballot title meet that test,” Jordan wrote.

In an interview with Oklahoma Gazette, Slane replied, “We’ve looked at the fact that they quoted a case that was decided after the election, but they didn’t have this legal precedent at the time (of the election). So what were they basing their decision on? We just want to know. They didn’t have a case on point in 2009 because it hadn’t been decided.

“I don’t want to get into politics.

I just want to know if it [MAPS 3] is legal or not.”

Although he’s taking more time to review previous legal challenges, Slane said he’s not “going by the wayside.”

On Monday, Slane told Oklahoma Gazette he has not decided if he will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the MAPS 3 vote.

However, City Manager Jim Couch said the 2011 case “further strengthens” the city’s position that the ballot language did not violate the state constitution: “The letter Kenny sent out on Tuesday is still valid on Thursday.”

Slane also alleged the ballot language was “so vague that it violates the law in its vagueness.

“It doesn’t tell anything to the voter.

It doesn’t tell the voter what the money will be used for. ... It’s amazing something so vague could be passed.”

Slane, who, in years past, has advocated unpopular positions on Oklahoma’s rape law and invasion of privacy by government drones, isn’t backing down despite largely negative social media reactions toward the longtime OKC attorney.

Oklahoma Gazette reader Stephanie Bice wrote, “Why do I get the feeling this has nothing to do with MAPS 3 and everything to do with an upcoming election?” Another reader, Allen Brown, wrote, “There’s nothing wrong with proposing a package for approval, just like bond issues. Do we have to vote on each street repair separately?” Still, Slane contends his purpose is noble and aimed at protecting OKC’s taxpaying residents.

“There is so much money involved, and the public has no oversight,” he said.

City officials established citizenled subcommittees and a MAPS 3 Oversight Board that makes recommendations to the Oklahoma City Council.

The first of its kind
So far, Slane said his legal review team has not found previous state Supreme Court cases that focused on similar municipal ballot issues.

“If it goes that far, this will be a case of first impression,” he said. “This will be the first of its kind ever in Oklahoma.”

Slane threatened to file a legal challenge with the Oklahoma Supreme Court if city officials had not responded to his original letter from Aug. 29. At the time, Slane said he would seek a restraining order preventing the city from collecting MAPS 3 tax revenue or spending of that money on the eight projects. The projects, valued at $777 million, include a convention center, sidewalks, trails, senior wellness centers, fairgrounds improvements, a modern streetcar system, Oklahoma River Improvements and a 70-acre public park in downtown OKC. The MAPS 3 initiative was approved by 54 percent of voters.

Oklahoma Gazette: News: MAPS threat lingers (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-19211-maps-threat-lingers.html)

Larry, you have been so against MAPS and the way it was handled, how would you have held the vote?

Would it be: Vote yes or no for a specified amount of money to go towards the building of a streetcar & hub, convention center, park, oklahoma river improvements, fairground improvements, senior wellness centers, trail, sidewalks and a contingency fund?

Would it be: Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of a streetcar. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of a convention center. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of a park. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of oklahoma river improvements. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of fairground improvements. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of senior wellness centers. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of trails. Vote yes or no for a specified amoutn of money to go towards the building of sidewalks.

Help me understand your thought process.

This is an interesting blog post from a blog very relevant to this thread:

"Data Shows Candidates May Have to Steal Votes From Each Other"


Data shows candidates may have to steal votes from each other | 200 Walker OKC (http://www.200walkerokc.com/?p=37)

The gist of this is that, in Shadid's district, the precincts that went heavily for Shadid in the last city council election are the same one that went heavily for Cornett in the last Mayoral election. Hence the two are drawing from the same, relatively liberal, fan base.

This being Oklahoma City, my DoctorTaco prediction then is that the candidate who successfully outlfanks the other to the right could run away with this thing. It seems like maybe Shadid, with his "us vs. them"/neighborhoods versus downtown/little guy against big government thng might be trying to tap into the Tea Party mindset/resentments, if not actually into Tea Party policy.

Great observations.

I do feel however that the blog post is trying to apply some science to some relatively irrelevant data (and I mean that the two shouldn't be contrasted).

The Ward 2 data is however completely relevant. That data is derived from a relatively high turn out of "educated" voters. It really demonstrates how Ward 2 can perform.

But the Mayoral election data with Steve Hunt as candidate and little campaigning and GOTV efforts doesn't really demonstrate anything that could be compared to this upcoming election.

Probably MAPS 3 would be a election to better compare some numbers on. Even that would be empirically flawed but might give you a sampling of a "worst case" scenario for Cornett.

In short, this election will be like none other if Shadid makes the monetary investments in advertising he claims he will make. If so, this will show the absolute best and worst sides of our city when its people are goaded.

I'm sure anonymous big business will be spending way more money for Cornett. It must be acknowledged that Shadid is the most formidable opponent Mick has ever faced.

We little people will help as well. I've already donated money and volunteered my time to Mayor Cornett, and I know some people who don't ordinarily donate who have done so already. Councilman Shadid has angered some people with his MAPS posturing. I have an 80 year old friend who has lived in OKC all his life. I saw him today for the first time in two months, and his first words to me were, "I'm so angry at that councilman I can hardly speak." Someone my son's age said something similar, and he lives in Ward 2. Shadid may be wake the sleeping majority, who don't ordinarily bother to vote in mayoral elections, but that won't necessarily be helpful to him.

I'm sure anonymous big business will be spending way more money for Cornett. It must be acknowledged that Shadid is the most formidable opponent Mick has ever faced.

That might have been true had he not kicked off his campaign so incompetently. I'm not sure who designed his campaign, but his thinly-veiled strategy of having a lackey declare war on MAPS, he alienated, oh, nearly everyone in town. With the exception of Larry, I suppose. And you.

That's two.

Now realizing the strategy was, ahem, unwise, he's got Slane backing up so fast he may trip over himself.

Methinks this may just end up another one of those lopsided mayoral elections after all. And there's no one but Shadid himself to thank for it. If there were legitimate issues to discuss, Shadid has almost certainly poisoned the well for it.

In the end, Shadid will have no one to blame for his loss but himself. He could have been a credible opponent to Cornett, but Ed is who he is, and he doesn't listen to advisors, and he goes off on "let's sue MAPS" missives and then blames his electoral impotence on false issues like "the Chamber screwed me." Ed is going to lose because he's a terrible, completely tone deaf politician, not because of imaginary demons like the Chamber.

I'm sure anonymous big business will be spending way more money for Cornett. It must be acknowledged that Shadid is the most formidable opponent Mick has ever faced.

It's not just going to be "big business." Get ready. Ed is going to be buried by small business and average donors saying, collectively, "We're not going to let this guy screw up a good thing."

Yup. Always a secret boogy-man at the heart of every conspiracy.

Also a sucker born every minute.

I only say that because it actually happened during the last Ward 2 election. Citizens United has forever changed the playing field of elections. I despise unfounded paranoia too.

These are ideas worth talking about regardless of your opinion of Ed Shadid.

Ed Shadid has new ideas for city revenue and spending | The City Sentinel (http://city-sentinel.com/2013/09/ed-shadid-has-new-ideas-for-city-revenue-and-spending/)

^ Holy crap! What a journalistic piece of junk! Wouldn't pass muster with my junior high school English teacher by a long shot. If this is the tone of the TRUSTED campaign then I'm not worried. This guy will fade into obscurity, if not infamy. I'm sad he's my city councilman. A first class woolpuller out of the box, but by now we all should be able to see that this guy is spoiling for a mud fight in a dry puddle. Ed, sit down, shut up and quit being a disingenuous narcissistic obstacle until your term as my councilman is through. Please.

These are ideas worth talking about regardless of your opinion of Ed Shadid.

Ed Shadid has new ideas for city revenue and spending | The City Sentinel (http://city-sentinel.com/2013/09/ed-shadid-has-new-ideas-for-city-revenue-and-spending/)

So he's in favor of increasing property taxes to fund everything. That will certainly go over well.

It looks like you didn't read the article.

It looks like you didn't read the article.

Wrong. I read every word.


“Forty nine states allow their cities to use property tax for operating expenses. Oklahoma doesn’t. They use it for their police, fire, public works, everything. So if a recession comes you don’t have to panic.”

This won't happen without a property tax increase.

Because the article talked about many ideas, not just the use of property taxes. Placemaking, bond issues, neighborhood engagement, small business loans, streetscapes. Is it possible to start a conversation here without it automatically becoming an adversarial debate?

My question would be: How does Ed propose we get our hands on property taxes? What are the legal issues involved in doing that? I know he's in favor of spending more for police protection. What do property taxes pay for that he would eliminate? The county sheriff department? Funding for schools? Or is he proposing raising property taxes so everything remains funded but the city gets a piece of the pie? He needs to be a bit more specific.

How is he proposing we determine if a company won't act without incentives? Will we know when they move to a different city that has offered them?

These are tricky issues. Some of his ideas are interesting, but I'd like to see more details and less politician-speak. I can think of all sorts of interesting proposals as well. But the devil tends to be in the details.

I also think Ed's lack of prior involvement in politics is showing. We all knew about the GO bond issue here, and talked about it pre-election. People can't necessarily take a passive approach to government and expect everything will magically be wonderful. Remember we have 30 years of anti-sidewalk agenda from the city manager's office to overcome, coupled with tremendous growth in area since that time, and there's no magic wand to wave to catch up in 1/4 that many years. I am continually shocked that people don't even know about the GO bond issue and sidewalks planned, but these people need to be educated about what is planned and why they don't have sidewalks, not be led to believe it is the fault of anyone currently in office, from the mayor on down.

I think placemaking and neighborhood promotion is great. Streetscaping is great. I don't know anyone who is against that.

Thank you, Betts for turning this into a real conversation. I think there is value in first describing the climate and inherent challenges with our current way of doing things. Time will tell if any of these trains of thought develop into real solutions to problems. The main issues that get me excited are placemaking, community building, and increased neighborhood engagement in the planning of future bond projects. Like I said, they're worth talking about.

I think placemaking and neighborhood promotion is great. Streetscaping is great. I don't know anyone who is against that.

I just want it to be known that Ed has made some important contributions in this area and has elevated our awareness of best practices. His efforts in the Western Avenue streetscape planning and his vision for building "places" throughout the city is inspiring.

But places happen organically as well. I spotted the Film District years before Chip Fudge and saw what it could become. I didn't have the time or money to pull it off. I can make a list of where the next Plaza Districts will be. They're easy to spot. Ed can do all that as a city councilman. He doesn't have to be mayor. And until he acknowledges and values the incredible efforts put in by many, many people before him, appreciates what the citizens of this city value, he is not the leader I want. I think it's good to have varying ideas and points of view. But Ed has that surgeon mentality - you have to cut to cure and only one person can do it, with the minions, er nurses, blindly following orders. He is so completely wrong there and I cannot trust he will change.

Everyone make mistakes including those of us in ward 2

The article starts by explaining how his entire proposal violates state law.

So how does a Green Party Ralph Nader adherent who has alienated most of the city council and probably wouldn't be able to even get a majority locally propose to get the Republican legislature to change state law to allow municipalities to raise property taxes?

Further, is there anyone out there against placemaking?

I voted against portions of the 2007 Bond Election because they very obviously would increase urban sprawl. I was on the losing side of that. Of course, Shadid is complaining about a process that he wasn't even a part of and an election in which I doubt he even took part or interest.

I think it says quite a bit when a publication doesn't have the other candidates views as well for contrast.

Further, is there anyone out there who is against placemaking?

Most or at least many, traffic engineers.

Because the article talked about many ideas, not just the use of property taxes. Placemaking, bond issues, neighborhood engagement, small business loans, streetscapes. Is it possible to start a conversation here without it automatically becoming an adversarial debate?

That's certainly not an article - it's an endorsement. Furthermore, this is all stuff that the City is already doing - maybe not the way Ed wants, but it's being done. Placemaking? Our current Mayor has been all over the US already talking about that. Sidewalks? The Mayor pushed for Jeff Speck to be hired to study that downtown. Were Jeff's suggestions implemented - only partially. That's not necessarily a result of the Mayor not backing him - it's City staff not adopting it or being aware of it.

A few thoughts based on my education and experience as a planner and a fan of all things municipal: First, property taxes are not all they're made up to be. This most recent recession, in particular, showed that states (and cities, etc) that rely heavily on them were just as, or even more, vulnerable. My hometown in Michigan lost an incredible amount of tax revenue because property values dropped by up to 50%. And now, even though West Michigan has fared very well in the economic recovery, property tax revenues are still behind, or at least even with, what they were in 2008. Now, could a mix of property tax and sales tax possibly help? Maybe, but that will take years of review, discussion and political wrangling. Getting that past our current Legislature and the Governor would take a lot of work.

Second, the GO Bond Election is hardly in the pocket of developers. I was very involved in the 2007 GO Bond process - I spent quite a few mornings up at 5:00 am working on maps and project lists so that we would have a good package. I never once met with a developer (or their attorneys) to discuss the project lists, and I never recall seeing my boss meet with them either. Do I agree with the final project list? Not entirely, especially road widenings, but that's based on past policy and old engineering-standards and ideas. I don't work at the City anymore, so I can't speak for the current process, but it's only 2013. I wouldn't expect that too much discussion is being had about the 2017 election just yet. It'll come soon, but probably not until mid to late 2014 or even 2015.

Most or at least many, traffic engineers.

I wouldn't couch it on those terms - they are trained to be TRAFFIC engineers. They aren't educated to think about placemaking. Change education style and training of engineers, and you might find a different story. Here's a really good post on the subject: "Confessions of a Recovering Engineer" Strong Towns - Strong Towns Blog (http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2010/11/22/confessions-of-a-recovering-engineer.html?printerFriendly=true)

And for the nonce. the GO Bond issue is estimated to occur in 2019 with the possibility of another MAPS in 2017.

I think that would be around 1.6 billion or more combined. So 12 - 15 years of city policy implementation.

Its a big deal!

And for the nonce. the GO Bond issue is estimated to occur in 2019 with the possibility of another MAPS in 2017.

I think that would be around 1.6 billion or more combined. So 12 - 15 years of city policy implementation.

Its a big deal!

2019? What's pushing it back - needing to do Maps first?

I wouldn't couch it on those terms - they are trained to be TRAFFIC engineers. They aren't educated to think about placemaking. Change education style and training of engineers, and you might find a different story. Here's a really good post on the subject: "Confessions of a Recovering Engineer" Strong Towns - Strong Towns Blog (http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2010/11/22/confessions-of-a-recovering-engineer.html?printerFriendly=true)

True, but they are THE reoccurring virtually insurmountable local obstacle. But your sentiments are exactly why I added the "Most or at least many" comment. Having worked on the OKC Boulevard fiasco, Western Ave streetscape, P180 streetcar integration, and EK Gaylord; I can assure you they have been the most difficult staff/department level to deal with.

I had a new generation engineer tell me in all seriousness this week with WIDE EYES of fear, "And do you know what happens if we don't build it (streets and highways) big enough!? DISASTER!"

2019? What's pushing it back - needing to do Maps first?

That was an estimate by city finance a few months ago related to the Bond rating, values, and letting. I guess it could change, but that I thought 2017 too and they suggested otherwise.

That was an estimate by city finance a few months ago related to the Bond rating, values, and letting. I guess it could change, but that I thought 2017 too and they suggested otherwise.

Interesting. When it was planned, the 2007 estimated 10 years of sales around $80M a year. However, the recession hit and they weren't able to sell as many bonds the first couple years. That may have been why it needs to push back.

Here's a little fun exercise for those with a few minutes of free time this morning.

1. Look up the contact information for your local state rep. and senator.
2. Dial or email or invite for a coffee.
3. Advise him or her that you want a public pledge within the next week (longer than Slane gave the city to respond re MAPs) in support of changing state law to permit local officials to add on to the property taxes of their constituents. Also, to support that any such new property tax will permit local officials to decide how the money will be appropriated, with the legislature having neither access to the funds nor a say in how the funds will be used.
4. Report back on the results.

Noting Tim Farley's article in the Gazette today did not reference Shadid's comments just a day or two earlier before Slane made his threats.

Perhaps he already covered it. Interesting timing between those two.

And apparently there is a great deal more going on behind the scenes.

Question: Why would an urban newspaper serving the core of Oklahoma City such as The City Sentinel "endorse" a candidate like Ed Shadid? Maybe I'm not the only crazy one.

Here's a little fun exercise for those with a few minutes of free time this morning.

1. Look up the contact information for your local state rep. and senator.
2. Dial or email or invite for a coffee.
3. Advise him or her that you want a public pledge within the next week (longer than Slane gave the city to respond re MAPs) in support of changing state law to permit local officials to add on to the property taxes of their constituents. Also, to support that any such new property tax will permit local officials to decide how the money will be appropriated, with the legislature having neither access to the funds nor a say in how the funds will be used.
4. Report back on the results.

Looks like 49 other states have found a way to make it work.

Question: Why would an urban newspaper serving the core of Oklahoma City such as The City Sentinel "endorse" a candidate like Ed Shadid? Maybe I'm not the only crazy one.

You're not the only crazy one out there.....there's a handful..LOL

Back to the Mayoral race, I heard Mick say this morning on the news that he went to 4 different block parties last night......

Question: Why would an urban newspaper serving the core of Oklahoma City such as The City Sentinel "endorse" a candidate like Ed Shadid? Maybe I'm not the only crazy one.

Who makes the editorial decisions for the City Sentinel? Who reads it? There might only be two of you. I'm joking, but the City Sentinel endorsement is even less meaningful than the Friday newspaper's endorsement of Mick Cornett.

Looks like 49 other states have found a way to make it work.

My mom stopped letting me get away with "Everyone ELSE is doing it" as an excuse a looooooong time ago....

Looks like 49 other states have found a way to make it work.

It's not a totally crazy idea, but he needs to show us that he can make it happen. What is his strategy? What assurances does he have that it's feasible? And again, higher taxes or what gets cut? You can't just throw proposals like that out there and assume everyone will bow to your wishes. Politically, in this state, Ed is a nobody. He's never held another public office. He has no party with significant numbers in government here. He's broken more political bridges than he's built, as far as I can see. Sometimes you have to take a candidates ability to accomplish his goals into account. A candidate with no political capital can say anything they want, but how are they going to accomplish their goals and fulfill their promises?

I didn't read it as an endorsement. I read it as an unbalanced article without contrast. It was as if the campaign wrote it and handed it off. Not saying that happened, but thats how it reads to me.

And people are right about Mayor Cornett bringing Jeff Speck here and dramatically crafting and implementing P180 as our biggest place making and walkability project of all time over the largest areas. That, despite it's flaws.

Ed is a newcomer to these ideas and hasn't personally successfully implemented any of them.

Its really funny to me that Mayor Cornett already "owns" these issues Ed is trying to build a case on. Thats a big reason as to why I told him last year that he needed to fulfill a full first term as Ward 2 Councilman to have any reasonable legitimacy as a mayoral candidate.

I didn't read it as an endorsement. I read it as an unbalanced article without contrast. It was as if the campaign wrote it and handed it off. Not saying that happened, but thats how it reads to me.


I was being facetious. I intended to infer that the "article" was so un-balanced that it read as a pro-candidate piece, essentially an endorsement. This isn't the first one that the City Sentinel has published like this, either.

I was actually responding to Bett's reference to it being an endorsement. But your facetiousness is noted. :D

Larry, you have been so against MAPS and the way it was handled, how would you have held the vote? ... Help me understand your thought process.
The 1st option would be the original MAPS ballot style (illegal logrolling & listing of unrelated projects...popular with unpopular to get the unpopular to pass...i.e., the Convention Center). The only thing MAPS 3 accomplished was removing the projects from the Ballot/Ordinance. it did nothing to solve the logrolling aspect IMO

The 2nd option would be the correct way to do it as you described. Each project listed as a separate proposition (like we did the 2007 G.O. Bond). The City's legal guy who wrote the Ballot admitted this would have been the best way to do it when grilled by Councilman Shadid, but stated that the Mayor/Council made a "policy" decision.

As I have said many times, I wasn't against the MAPS 3 projects, think I would have voted for all of them, even the unpopular Convention Center. However, I could not support the way they went about doing it (they had said they were going to do it the option 2 way). So I voted No, and will do so every time they do so.

There were other obstacles to getting my Yes vote even if the ballot had been constructed correctly...mainly the City's dismal track record with getting anything built:
1) on time
2) as promised
3) on budget.

They didn't do it with MAPS, MAPS 4 Kids, and with the Arena improvements they only met 1 out of 3

Because the article talked about many ideas, not just the use of property taxes. Placemaking, bond issues, neighborhood engagement, small business loans, streetscapes. Is it possible to start a conversation here without it automatically becoming an adversarial debate?

With Ed, there's always a conversation and never a plan. I went along with it for a year until I realized he just likes to start fires. No plan, no leadership, no strategy. No thanks, Ed.

Have you ever built a house Larry? I've built three and the longest time from concept to completion was 2.5 years. Not one of them was finished in the time frame outlined. Not one of them was on budget. As promised relates to #3. If the price of one significant thing changes, your budget is shot before you begin. For me one time it was forest fires in Canada. Tornados, hurricanes, hail, the price of oil and myriad things we never think about and usually cannot plan for can dramatically affect the budget, even in as little as 2.5 years. Now. I'm not saying the city has a perfect track record on spending our money as wisely as possible. I've seen our subcommittee meet pushback when we've tried to coordinate things to save time and money. But when we vote no, they don't come back and say "OK, we promise to do this on time and on budget if you vote again." We get nothing. I'd rather have imperfect than nothing, personally. That's why I voted "yes".

Question: Why would an urban newspaper serving the core of Oklahoma City such as The City Sentinel "endorse" a candidate like Ed Shadid? Maybe I'm not the only crazy one.

krisb - I see where you are coming from now - if you read into something that you think is there, you start to believe it.

I just picked up 'The City Sentinel'...... i read the article - It is only a press release conveyed by the reporter - it is NOT an endorsement for Ed by the City Sentinel -.....they did not endorse Ed as you want to believe.

You have lost all credibility with me, amongst others I'm sure. krisb, I think you've been brainwashed ! RUN !!! LOL And the 49 states quotes, you are quoting Ed........ In Texas, property taxes are triple Oklahoma....I don't want that.......Ed is saying what he wants you to hear to get elected. He has no record as a mayor, and a little bit tainted record as a councilman.

Mick is a proven commodity, not so much for Ed.

What Ed has no clue about - he says that a sales tax is a tax on the poor...... not so much so, if they don't have much money to spend, they're not getting taxed...bottom line.