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.


that is not what he said .... he said it would have been one way to do it .. he did not say the best way ..

I guess for Larry, the best thing to do is under promise and over achieve. What if they came out and said $120 million will get us four miles of streetcar. Then, when it comes back that we get 5-6 with that same amount of money, everybody's happy? No, people will be saying, "I am not going to vote yes for $30 million/mile when the average is $20 million/mile! Why can't we get six miles of streetcar?" They went with the information provided to them with the research they did.

I knew for a fact that there was going to have to be a phase 2 of the convention center when San Antonio just approved $325 million for an expansion of 684,000 sq ft.

I knew $250 million wasn't going to get us a brand new perfect convention center. There were rumblings that $50 million or so was going to have to be used as incentive to built a CC Hotel.

Maybe I knew about this because I am very active on this board and read the business section of the Oklahoman, Tulsa World and the Gazette every day.

I guess I am in the crowd where the ends justify the means. If we had to double the cost of the original MAPS to get what we did (which, if you are not aware is an NBA team, world class rowing events, a vibrant downtown and city overall, top of the line horse shows, a revamped civic center, the canal and the top AAA baseball stadium in the country) then SO BE IT! I would be willing to do more than just give $0.01 in sales tax for every dollar spent in this city to keep us doing what we are doing.

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.

The City Sentinel didn't endorse Shadid. It was just one story looking at Shadid's alternative ideas. I doubt the Sentinel will be endorsing Shadid for Mayor as long as Pat McGuigan has anything to do with the newspaper.

nm

The City Sentinel didn't endorse Shadid. It was just one story looking at Shadid's alternative ideas. I doubt the Sentinel will be endorsing Shadid for Mayor as long as Pat McGuigan has anything to do with the newspaper.

krisb thinks it did.....

The City Sentinel didn't endorse Shadid. It was just one story looking at Shadid's alternative ideas. I doubt the Sentinel will be endorsing Shadid for Mayor as long as Pat McGuigan has anything to do with the newspaper.

Sorry. I assumed there had been an announcement in the paper along with the story.

The City Sentinel didn't endorse Shadid. It was just one story looking at Shadid's alternative ideas. I doubt the Sentinel will be endorsing Shadid for Mayor as long as Pat McGuigan has anything to do with the newspaper.

No, but the stories they've posted about Shadid have appeared cut-and-paste of press releases or campaign materials...

I was only responding to the previous statement that it was an endorsement, that's why I put the word endorse in quotes. Perhaps I should have began with, "If that were the case...". I saw it as an article in a newspaper, nothing else.

krisb thinks it did.....

I was only responding to the previous statement that it was an endorsement, that's why I put the word endorse in quotes. Perhaps I should have began with, "If that were the case...". I saw it as an article in a newspaper, nothing else.

Sorry for the duplicate post above.

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

Young sir, perhaps, though also somewhat irrelevant.

I did not indicate if changing the property tax structure is a grand thought or an Alexander thought. Merely that it can only happen with the Legislature being on board.

Again, pitch the idea to your local rep. and senator that the property tax should be fair game for play by cities and towns. Then report back.

Perhaps there are many who would make this a cornerstone of their 2014 reelection campaigns. Not the bet I would lay down, but to each their own chips.

You are right. But that wont stop him from repeating the same thing, over and over, and over again.

It's almost like he's taking a stance ... almost.

It's almost like he's taking a stance ... almost.

Or he's been listening to the same broken record for the last 15 years...

I get wanting the projects to be voted on separately, but the overpromised and underdelivered, failed to deliver on time thing? Give me a freaking break. Go downtown and take a look around for a little while. The ends justify the means. The Devon Tower didn't turn out exactly as it was proposed, it is 4 floors shorter. Does that mean it's some type of failure? MAPS 1 and likely MAPS 3 when all is said and done could have been executed better, but I am far more than happy with how MAPS 1 ended up and I'm sure I won't feel that much differently about 3. Most massive city or state projects are not going to turn out how they are originally proposed. I'd much rather dream big and have to scale back a little then never shoot for it at all. You can always add on to projects in the future.

In a completely surprising move, the FOP has endorsed Ed Shadid for Mayor of OKC...

Fraternal Order Of Police To Back OKC Mayor's Challenger - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/23441120/fraternal-order-of-police-to-back-okc-mayors-challenger)

Still stinging from losing the MAPS III vote...

In a completely surprising move, the FOP has endorsed Ed Shadid for Mayor of OKC...

Fraternal Order Of Police To Back OKC Mayor's Challenger - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/23441120/fraternal-order-of-police-to-back-okc-mayors-challenger)

In other news, Water is Wet, Sky is Blue, and Marriage Found as Leading Cause of Divorce....

And PT Barnum rolls over, smiles and gives another little wink

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.
Make it one. While I agree with him on most issues and MAPS 3 being unconstitutional, he lost my vote for Mayor. For many of the "flip-flops" that others have detailed, but also for breaking the most basic promise to his constituents, that he will serve his entire term. If he is elected Mayor, there is still 1 year to go on his Council seat.


The article starts by explaining how his entire proposal violates state law. …
Oh the irony…LOL


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

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.

Did they change their mind & push it back? Granted the link below essentially says they won't do another bond election before 2017….

City of Oklahoma City | 2007 Bond Issue Proposal (http://www.okc.gov/news/go_bond_2007/q_and_a.html)

How often are bond issue elections held?
Oklahoma City last held bond issue elections in 1989, 1995 and 2000, so they've been spaced roughly five or six years apart. Since this is a 10-year bond issue, the next bond election won't be until 2017.


warreng88: that would be better than what they do now is over promise and under achieve.


BoulderSooner & Sid: I went back and watched the video and I stand corrected, it was one way to do it (the "best way" comment was in there somewhere but not precisely on that point)...Page 24 of this thread, post #582) benign at the 52:30 mark:

Shadid asks the Municipal Counselor
Kenneth D. Jordan, if the projects could have been mentioned (to prevent the Council from diverting money from one purpose to another), on the Ballot (like they were in MAPS 1 as a all-or-nothing). The answer was that you could have but would have had to have come up with a single subject where you could unite all of those various projects which would probably not be possible to do…that you would need multiple propositions.
Does the Single Subject rule apply to cities? Mr. Jordan agreed and also agreed that logrolling wasn't allowed. You can't make the voter's choose between unpopular and popular projects in hopes to get the unpopular ones to pass. He was having trouble putting it into worse but said a good example is you couldn't put the Convention Center and Senior Centers into the same proposition. Might have been able to put the Wellness Centers and the Park under a Parks & Recreation proposition.
Apparently quoting Mr. Jordan again…
Taxation can not be the single subject of the ordinance because it is too broad…it appears impossible to include a mandate for all of the MAPS 3 projects in one limited purpose or special purpose ordinance…can't combine the Fairgrounds improvements with the Recreation Centers because it would leave the voter with the "unpalatable all-or-nothing choice" … we can't be too ambitious and try to unite too many items in case the Supreme Court decides to disagree how we tried to unite them into a single ordinance and proposition.
So then there was a choice, once the City came down to the 8 projects, to list them separately or put the 8 projects together, Shadid asks if there was anything that prevented the City from listing the projects as separate propositions. The answer was no, that it was a policy decision. Shadid went on to say that the City misled voters by saying they had to put everything into one all-or-nothing ballot (that they "must" do it that way). That the City tried to circumvent the body of laws and the State Supreme Court.
Taken in their entirety, Mr. Shadid's conclusions are correct. (Not that I am going to vote for him for Mayor).

Oh the irony…LOL

Show me where Maps III is unequivocally unconstitutional and I'll concede the point. Again, you're reaching your seemingly concrete conclusion, so I'll again ask you what sort of legal expertise do you have which allows you to reach this conclusion? I've given you the law and applied it to these facts. For the Court to say this is unconstitutional would be another ratchet past where we're at now. Right now, did the bill have a single subject? Yes. Money for capital improvements for OKC. Is it being spent on anything but that? Nope. Can it be? Nope. It has to be spent on capital improvements. Did the voters have a clear choice as to whether they wanted capital improvements? You betcha--much to the chagrin of police/fire who want to raise your taxes to hire more public safety workers without addressing the issue of sales tax revenue to begin with--which MAPS III does and will be responsible for huge growth in sales and ad valorem revenues.


Taken in their entirety, Mr. Shadid's conclusions are correct. (Not that I am going to vote for him for Mayor).

If you feel misled, you were living under a rock and didn't read the ballot. The question as to whether this money could be diverted from the 8 projects has been thoroughly discussed in the public sphere.The only way the voters could be misled is if they didn't understand what capital improvement means.

Show me where Maps III is unequivocally unconstitutional and I'll concede the point. Again, you're reaching your seemingly concrete conclusion, so I'll again ask you what sort of legal expertise do you have which allows you to reach this conclusion? I've given you the law and applied it to these facts. For the Court to say this is unconstitutional would be another ratchet past where we're at now. Right now, did the bill have a single subject? Yes. Money for capital improvements for OKC. Is it being spent on anything but that? Nope. Can it be? Nope. It has to be spent on capital improvements. Did the voters have a clear choice as to whether they wanted capital improvements? You betcha--much to the chagrin of police/fire who want to raise your taxes to hire more public safety workers without addressing the issue of sales tax revenue to begin with--which MAPS III does and will be responsible for huge growth in sales and ad valorem revenues.



If you feel misled, you were living under a rock and didn't read the ballot. The question as to whether this money could be diverted from the 8 projects has been thoroughly discussed in the public sphere.The only way the voters could be misled is if they didn't understand what capital improvement means.

Should we start a separate thread for Larry? How about "Larry's Musings on City Government, Right and Wrong"? It could serve as a place for Larry to critique all city issues, from MAPS to city bond elections. Then, we could get back to discussion on the mayoral race.

I'm not certain the OKC mayoral race for 2014 and M3 will ever become separate discussions until the votes are counted, and possibly several months beyond.
Not saying it ought to be that way. Just it seems headed that direction.

Should we start a separate thread for Larry? How about "Larry's Musings on City Government, Right and Wrong"? It could serve as a place for Larry to critique all city issues, from MAPS to city bond elections. Then, we could get back to discussion on the mayoral race.

I'm sure we could all benefit to hear his "expert" opinions on these matters.
=

South OKC on the path to victory for Shadid | 200 Walker OKC (http://www.200walkerokc.com/?p=68)

That headline is a bit misleading and grammatically a bit iffy.

I really don't know why this guy keeps reffering to the Hunt election as relevant data. There isn't really any relevant comparative data except for the MAPS 3 election. And even that could be considered as something of a stretch.

I really don't know why this guy keeps reffering to the Hunt election as relevant data. There isn't really any relevant comparative data except for the MAPS 3 election. And even that could be considered as something of a stretch.

There is not much data available. Dude is doing the best he can.

South OKC on the path to victory for Shadid | 200 Walker OKC (http://www.200walkerokc.com/?p=68)

I know we shouldn't think about these things in more partisan terms, but lets be realistic.

Do you REALLY think an area that has given us right-wingers like Brian Walters, Ralph "don't eat that aborted fetus" Shorty, and the capitol's favorite wingnut Mike Reynolds are suddenly going to vote for a former Green Party candidate en masse?

Yeah, that title is definitely misleading. Reading the article the conclusion seems to be that South OKC is a must win, in order for Shadid to even have a chance.

There is not much data available. Dude is doing the best he can.

That's my point. Not trying to be overly critical of the guy, but if your trying to be the "Nate Silver" of OKC, the MAPS 3 election would be a better reference point than the Hunt versus Mayor election results.

The sampling is of an "educated audience", "high" turn out, and ironically has the same sort of organized opposition involved.

It just seems to me to be a better reference point. The reality is that this election will probably establish a new historic reference point in itself due to the money and organizational capacity predicted to be involved.

If a candidate seems to be poised to pander/solicit/appeal [pick one or more] to a group of aginners of a process like MAPs3, which is reasonably successful, or better, then he simply must not only capture the heats, minds, wallets and v-day commitment of those people, he has to also convince quite a few of their polar opposites to alter their mindset as well.

That's a tall order for any politico, but especially a novice.

Originally Posted by soonerguru
Should we start a separate thread for Larry? How about "Larry's Musings on City Government, Right and Wrong"? It could serve as a place for Larry to critique all city issues, from MAPS to city bond elections. Then, we could get back to discussion on the mayoral race.

Originally posted by Midtowner
I'm sure we could all benefit to hear his "expert" opinions on these matters.
=
No need exists to denigrate Larry for posting his opinions. That's what all of us do ... post opinions. I guess that the two o' youtz, Soonerguru and Midtowner, that you are higher and mightier than in days gone by and are presently comfortable in saying what you said. Perhaps separate threads are needed ... for the two o' youtz, as well.

Truth is ... some of Larry's opinions have merit, some of yours do, too. Others still are crap, IMO. I'll leave it to you, my friends, to ferret out the wheat from the chaff. From your posts, it sounds as though you you perceive that you have both the willingness and the credentials to do so. Make it so.

This message board is a vehicle by which we all are allowed to expressed ourselves. We are all thankful to Pete for providing us a place to share our Opinions, Attitudes & Beliefs.

"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us."--Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I don't think you are correct.
Yet no one has posted a constitutional provision or statute which prohibits a city council from logrolling. Like Doug, I have not found one. I do believe that Art.5 is directed at the Legislature and defines that term as not including a city council or vote of a city. I am just looking for the legal authority anyone who would challenge maps 3 as logrolling (which it wasn't) would rely on. If it is Art. 5, good luck to them.

If a candidate seems to be poised to pander/solicit/appeal [pick one or more] to a group of aginners of a process like MAPs3, which is reasonably successful, or better, then he simply must not only capture the heats, minds, wallets and v-day commitment of those people, he has to also convince quite a few of their polar opposites to alter their mindset as well.

That's a tall order for any politico, but especially a novice.

Totally true.

Yet no one has posted a constitutional provision or statute which prohibits a city council from logrolling. Like Doug, I have not found one. I do believe that Art.5 is directed at the Legislature and defines that term as not including a city council or vote of a city. I am just looking for the legal authority anyone who would challenge maps 3 as logrolling (which it wasn't) would rely on. If it is Art. 5, good luck to them.

Whether it passes constitutional muster or not, MAPSIII a textbook example of logrolling and bait and switch to get the unpopular convention center built first, and oh yah forgot to mention, it's going need a hotel. Voters will have to approve a MAPSIV if they want the items they actually voted for, or spite themselves. Mick must have leaned that shell game in a marketing class.

I seriously doubt the Convention Center was Mick's idea. I suspect this was a Chamber pet project. Remember also that a majority of the Council had to go along as well to get it included. The mayor, if he or she is a leader, can suggest things and help get things attention, but with our weak mayor system, in the end they're only one vote of 9. And, while I would be fine with the Convention Center not being built in its current, planned location, I'm also a believer that with MAPS everybody works together to get things they want. I wasn't interested in the white water course or anything planned at the fairgrounds, I already have sidewalks and I don't use the trails. But they are good things to other people. That's how MAPS works and why it works - none of these projects might have passed as stand alone projects. Nor might any of the original MAPS projects. Raise your hand if you long for the OKC of the 70s.

I'm for ANY projects that increase the gravitas and awareness of OKC. I'm for any projects that improve quality of life for the citizens. I think MAPS is one of the best civic creations around. My mother's town of 50,000 recently passed a similar set of projects under a single vote (a different state, so no one cares) and the citizens are thrilled with the results. They just got the State Fair moved to their city because of fairground upgrades, which is a huge financial windfall for them. Sound familiar? As I have said before, anyone who has a problem with MAPS either wasn't alive in the 70s and 80s, didn't live here or wasn't paying attention.

Thank you mayors of OKC (since that horrific time in the history if this city).

Whether it passes constitutional muster or not, MAPSIII a textbook example of logrolling and bait and switch to get the unpopular convention center built first, and oh yah forgot to mention, it's going need a hotel. Voters will have to approve a MAPSIV if they want the items they actually voted for, or spite themselves. Mick must have leaned that shell game in a marketing class.

Thats funny, I think Maps3 is progressing as most people voted for. Some people though could buy a $100 bill for 10 cents and complain they weren't given a $1,000 bill. Maps3 will be popular when finished and Maps 4 will stand a pretty good chance of passing unless special interest groups start thinking they know what is best for the rest of us and torpedo the passing of anything but their pet project. As Betts so well states, we vote for things that may not directly benefit us as individuals, but are smart enough to know how it helps the city in general and us indirectly. Some people can't see past their own selfish interests and vote against everything else. Those are probably the ones who held their breath and passed out when they were kids.

Thats funny, I think Maps3 is progressing as most people voted for. Some people though could buy a $100 bill for 10 cents and complain they weren't given a $1,000 bill. Maps3 will be popular when finished and Maps 4 will stand a pretty good chance of passing unless special interest groups start thinking they know what is best for the rest of us and torpedo the passing of anything but their pet project. As Betts so well states, we vote for things that may not directly benefit us as individuals, but are smart enough to know how it helps the city in general and us indirectly. Some people can't see past their own selfish interests and vote against everything else. Those are probably the ones who held their breath and passed out when they were kids.

Agreed, Mick is a chamber tool and toady of barons for sure. He was willing to forever change council protocol and not delay the MAPSIII timeline vote until Dr Shadid could get back in town after his flight was cancelled. MAPIII hijacked the process and will make any future votes difficult I would imagine. Will our barons cover the operating deficits the cc is going to generate since it's mostly their quality of life it's going to improve?

Actually, Dr. Shadid and his cronies are working harder to damage the MAPS brand than any tea partiers out there. As usual, politics makes strange bedfellows. The sad thing is, if he succeeds, the spillover to projects he would like to fund may be profound, and irretrievably damage public willingness to fund projects that don't directly benefit themselves. Shortsightedness is not a useful trait for political leadership.

MAPS has been fruitful for the overall impression and reputation of Oklahoma City. Mayor Mick Cornett did embrace MAPS' development and pushed to improve the overall image and comestic makeover to make OKC more physically attractive.

Interesting that San Antonio would joke about Oklahoma City's Bricktown Canal; at least we are able to clean the canal every two years. You wouldn't believe what I saw floating (appearance: sludge log) in the green water of the SA Riverwalk? I'm not one to gossip, and you didn't hear that from me (laughing).

Here are some excerpts from an article (link below) about progress in our city:

"The Bricktown Canal might be artificial and might be the subject of jokes, but it was conceived by progressive forces in Oklahoma City who saw, specifically, how much the Paseo del Rio in San Antonio served as the foundation of a tourist and convention economy now worth an estimated $13 billion a year. I still remember during Mayor Bill Thornton’s administration in the mid-1990s traveling with a city-led delegation to Monterrey, where San Antonio engineers were overseeing an urban canal project similar to the one they were overseeing in Oklahoma City while also working on the expanded Convention Center stretch of the River Walk.

Oklahoma City, like San Antonio, is still a city trying to make its core central district one that will attract and keep smart, educated young people. Oklahoma City 20 years ago didn’t stand a chance. Now it does. So while the Spurs are taking on the Thunder, we can bait our Red River neighbors with cheap put-downs, or we can spend time between games learning from a regional sister city that can teach us a lot about vision, cohesiveness and tenacity — at least off the basketball court".

This article:
Way More than OK: Oklahoma City is a City to Embrace, not Bash | The Rivard Report (http://therivardreport.com/way-more-than-ok-oklahoma-city-is-a-city-to-embrace-not-bash/)

Oklahoma City is a work-in-progress (--to be continued). There are still a lot of eye-sore structures and areas which need to be addressed...

Will Dr. Shadid continue to address or undress these concerns?

There is more to being a mayor in Oklahoma City than supporting or not supporting MAPS. To make complete progress as a city we need to address our bus system, health disparities, crime, poverty, and diversity issues to name a few. I completely support the progress we have made only if it means everyone in the city will benefit. There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

There is more to being a mayor in Oklahoma City than supporting or not supporting MAPS. To make complete progress as a city we need to address our bus system, health disparities, crime, poverty, and diversity issues to name a few. I completely support the progress we have made only if it means everyone in the city will benefit. There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

Diversity issues? What should a mayor be doing? Be specific if you can.

There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

Going to be straight up about this. If there is any one thing that is p***ing me off as a US citizen, it is the growing disparity between income and sustainability. Whether it is Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, or Reagan, this country has been and is on a precipitous decline with regards to income equality. It p***es me off to no end that the banking industry and Wall Street got off without a hitch with the toxic asset infusion and subsequent bailout by our fair citizens provided them. And yet still, the bailout of these companies did not translate into any kind of meaningful reinvestment in our US economy... JUST MORE SQUEEZING

With that stated, after volunteering for ED and seeing his subsequent irrational assault on our local business community and our city-wide collective "all together" pursuit of a better life here, there is no way his "leadership" could ever claim this picture below over Cornett and the "boogeyman chamber junta" (as Spartan would call it).

4491

In addition, poverty is a national problem that is very hard to affect at the local level. Improving schools helps, but again, much of the financial decisions are a state issue. Frankly, improving our downtown may help as much as anything we can do on a city-wide level. We've seen it increase jobs and lower unemployment. But also, as we improve our downtown, people move back in towards the center city. That has been proven to improve schools, and diversity in city schools is good for people of lower and higher income. Education is the key to improving quality of life.

Also, it's rather patronizing of us to assume the poor don't enjoy leisure time activities. Are they somehow different from the rest of us? I take care of their children, and I see more Thunder gear and find as many Thunder fans among the poor as any socioeconomic group. Do they not enjoy parks or the playgrounds on the river? They go to Bricktown and the Myriad Gardens. The poor are just like the rest of us.

No need exists to denigrate Larry for posting his opinions.

He's stating his opinions as if they are fact. He's misrepresenting what the law is and I doubt he is equipped to really understand why. The State Supreme Court has taken the single subject rule only so far. His argument ratchets it a step further and he states with confidence that that ratchet further is in fact where we are today. Until and unless a court rules on the matter, the Maps III ballot is constitutional and that's not what he's saying.

I see fit to denigrate someone after they've had it demonstrated to them over and over and had the caselaw laid out for them in black and white when they take that information and ignore it. I'm not presenting an opinion, belief or attitude. I'm just telling y'all what the law is.

It's also true that the State Supreme Court could ratchet the rule further to say that we can't accomplish indirectly what we can't accomplish directly, but that's a heck of a Pandora's Box. Imagine... sales tax revenue dedicated to "capital improvements" is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule. How about the public safety tax? At what level of generality could the Court ever let us know when a tax would be constitutional? It'd lead to chaos. The dead rising from the graves, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I appreciate what you're doing here, trying to be the reasonable one, the arbiter who says that there are always two sides to the story. In this case, there aren't.

Yet no one has posted a constitutional provision or statute which prohibits a city council from logrolling. Like Doug, I have not found one. I do believe that Art.5 is directed at the Legislature and defines that term as not including a city council or vote of a city. I am just looking for the legal authority anyone who would challenge maps 3 as logrolling (which it wasn't) would rely on. If it is Art. 5, good luck to them.

This is the article:


Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes; and no law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length: Provided, That if any subject be embraced in any act contrary to the provisions of this section, such act shall be void only as to so much of the laws as may not be expressed in the title thereof.

I thought I would, but I have done a fairly exhaustive search on Westlaw and cannot find a single instance of the single subject laws being applied to municipalities. That being said, “A municipal corporation in this state has only such powers as conferred upon it by the Legislature. ‘* * * grants of such powers are strictly construed against the corporations * * *.”’ Cain's Coffee Co. v. City of Muskogee, 171 Okl. 635, 44 P.2d 50, 53. The legislature cannot confer powers it does not have. Thus, the single subject rule applies to municipalities.

There is more to being a mayor in Oklahoma City than supporting or not supporting MAPS. To make complete progress as a city we need to address our bus system, health disparities, crime, poverty, and diversity issues to name a few. I completely support the progress we have made only if it means everyone in the city will benefit. There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

Oh goody.. for the umpteenth time, how does a mayor accomplish this with his tie-breaking vote on the horseshoe? How do you think the city government as opposed to the federal government should address families wanting jobs and keeping food on the table? Perhaps make sure that there are businesses here to give folks jobs? How do we lure businesses here? Quality of life issues. Things like the NBA are huge. Those are the things which build the momentum for us to have bus systems.

I'm not sure what your solution to "diversity issues" is?

I celebrate the progress we have made as a city, not denying it. I am just saying that there is still more to do. Unemployment numbers do not measure quality of life for the working poor. I would also argue that local communities have the best opportunity to address poverty by harnessing the social capital of neighborhoods, non-profits, religious communities, and small businesses. We have seen how effective the federal government is in addressing these disparities, even from a Democratic President. No doubt, the poor enjoy leisure time but not all have the same access to downtown amenities. Perhaps increasing evening and weekend bus service would help. As the urban core has become gentrified it has displaced less affluent families to the inner ring of older suburban neighborhoods.

I see nothing wrong with your ideas. I just see no reason to think that Ed can or would accomplish that any better than Mick.

Increasing evening and weekend bus service would help. I've always been in favor of improving our bus service. i just think we need to improve attitudes towards mass transit before the voters will willingly tax themselves to improve bus service. i think we may also need to link it to rail to make that happen, which is why i am so gung-ho about an RTD. But Mayor Cornett and other mayors are already working towards that. It's nothing that will be jump-started by changing who's in office. Gentrification takes years and years. It's actually when neighborhoods are in flux that there is the most economic diversity. We've got some in flux and some that need to be. Very few of our closest in neighborhoods can be considered completely gentrified.

I celebrate the progress we have made as a city, not denying it. I am just saying that there is still more to do. Unemployment numbers do not measure quality of life for the working poor. I would also argue that local communities have the best opportunity to address poverty by harnessing the social capital of neighborhoods, non-profits, religious communities, and small businesses. We have seen how effective the federal government is in addressing these disparities, even from a Democratic President. No doubt, the poor enjoy leisure time but not all have the same access to downtown amenities. Perhaps increasing evening and weekend bus service would help. As the urban core has become gentrified it has displaced less affluent families to the inner ring of older suburban neighborhoods.

Like every other city. What can be done about it? There is definitely an underclass that has no interest in improving their lot. The hood is their playground. For those who do want out and into the middle class, I'm not sure local government has that much power to do much. Though I understand your frustration.

Better bus service. A noble goal to achieve indeed. Has candidate Shadid clearly identified a funding source for covering increased ops and maintenance expenses for any expanded bus service in the metro?

That seems to be a very important issue to him regarding the streetcar. I am presuming it is an equally important issue regarding more bus service. Just curious if there is a plan somewhere online I might review to better understand the how. I already get the why.

That's a common theme we've seen in Shadid's campaign--identifying shortcomings of the current Council and saying what should be done, but never getting very specific as to how as mayor, he'd have any political capital at all to spend on anything like his proposals or even whether the solutions to the problems he's talking about are within his power at all. For example, the police department has been allocated lots of additional funds to hire additional personnel. Thus far, the Chief hasn't spent that money on new officers. That's a problem outside the powers of the Council to repair.

... Thus far, the Chief hasn't spent that money on new officers. That's a problem outside the powers of the Council to repair.

Is Chief hired by the City Mgr.? Memory says yes, but it's Monday and it's still early Monday at that. If that's correct, it's not totally outside the control of council. Well, it wouldn't be if the city manager actually reported to council. From the outside, it sometimes appears that once hired, the city manager supervises the council up there. And yes, I've heard that said about Norman and some other communities before as well.

I believe outside of the City Manager, the Code restricts the Council from hiring or firing anyone except for maybe their own staffs.

I believe outside of the City Manager, the Code restricts the Council from hiring or firing anyone except for maybe their own staffs.

City Auditor and City Attorney are the only other two. They don't get their own staffs - staff is supplied by the City Manager's office, I believe. It's about 4 people total - one front-desk secretary, two (maybe three) lower-level assistants, and then the head assistant. Each assistant is assigned to a few council members at a time.

I get that Mid. But if as a matter of policy the council says public safety is important, it will be increased and then allocates funds but it doesn't happen, then their employee, the city mgr. is not motivating his subordinates, including the police chief, to implement policy. If the city mgr. can't or won't fix it, the council can decide they need a city mg. who will implement their policy directives (if it is a major issue with the council.)

So they can exercise control, but yeah, it is not direct control. Again, it does requires a council willing to run their city manager and that is not always the case. Some councils get rather hands off once they put someone in place. Not a bad thing all in all. Trying to micro manage the city mgr. would create a lot of issues. But making sure major policy moves happen is not micromanaging.

And I'm sure the police department has its reasons for slow playing expansion of its police force. Perhaps academy facilities and staffs are only equipped to handle so many students at a time? Perhaps it would require a significant permanent investment to expand the academy to be larger than we need? These are unknowns to me, but most in OKC don't have a huge problem with public safety as things stand. Remember, the grips we're all hearing are not coming from the upper echelons of OKCPD and OKCFD leadership. We're hearing from the unions. Unions have their own agendas. In this case, more police and firefighters = more dues money for the unions.

Ed's plan is to build world class bus shelters throughout the city with matching federal dollars. The City would keep the ad revenue rather than give 100% to Tyler Media. In his estimate, the revenue generated would pay for construction of the shelters as well as an increase in service on nights and weekends.

This Year?s Investment in Bus Shelters Will Yield Significant Dividends to City of OKC - Ed Shadid (http://www.edshadid.com/this_year_s_investment_in_bus_shelters_will_yield_ significant_dividends_to_city_of_okc)

Ed's plan is to build world class bus shelters throughout the city with matching federal dollars. The City would keep the ad revenue rather than give 100% to Tyler Media. In his estimate, the revenue generated would pay for construction of the shelters as well as an increase in service on nights and weekends.

This Year?s Investment in Bus Shelters Will Yield Significant Dividends to City of OKC - Ed Shadid (http://www.edshadid.com/this_year_s_investment_in_bus_shelters_will_yield_ significant_dividends_to_city_of_okc)

I like the idea of improving the bus shelters, but the basic question is:

Where do we build them?

Our bus routes are ineffective and in the process of being redesigned. It seems premature to invest in permanent infrastructure until we improve the routes / bus system first. Right?

So let's say we start throwing all of this money at bus shelters and then determine the routes are going to change (as they need to). There is a sequence to this and building the shelters now is out of sequence. Let's build the system we want first.

OKC does not need real-time advisory right now. We need a dependable bus system that hits every 20 minutes or less (especially in the core) and shelters that in addition to keeping people out of precipitation, display a stop progression (with transfer info), stop times. A route map and city map would also be appreciated.