Is anyone else agnostic about the race? I've been following closely because well who doesn't love a good fight, but neither candidate is ideal.

National press is lauding OKC for low unemployment, the downtown focus is spilling over in 'hoods like Midtown, Uptown, JFK, and OKC is on TV sets across the country countless times a year (Thunder Up). Mick has done great things for the city, but hasn't laid out a plan for the next 4 years. Despite the good news we still have expensive sprawl issues (bad air, bad water infrastructure), a truly awful school district, and OKC's income is still below the national average (say nothing of the poverty rate). He also has a less than stellar record on some urban issues: streetcar route is too sort, we're rebuilding a freeway downtown with its replacement blocks away, the NE and inner SW sides of town are still very ghetto, and Ed's right, our bus service sucks.

Some on here have brushed it off, but I admired Ed's fight on the convention center; I still think that was a poor use of MAPS 3 dollars (many agree, see Mick's last results, and the rocky passage of MAPS 3). Even though Ed seems to have a platform built on transit access and funds for inner city neighborhoods, he lacks the knowledge and political skills to get any of that done. I don't disagree with Mick enough to jump on board the Ed train. He's flipped flopped on the streetcar, which while not perfect is a start to a 30 year dream of rail in OKC. I'm not going to rehash the deeply embarrassing divorce proceedings here, but even the bleeding heart liberal in me thinks that's just not the standard public office holders should set. So adding all of these up Ed's clearly not up to snuff.

Neither of these guys excite me. Maybe I'm just asking for too much in an urban-minded mayor that doesn't have a coke-filled background and knows how to listen to the urbanism consultants the city hires.

We're stuck in the mindset from when Maps 1 was conceived twenty years ago. One reason people listened to Ed was because he was talking about the "holistic" view. Great word to use when talking about the city. As you said, and as I've said before on this forum, we don't have leadership with that vision, much less with the ability to put it into a plan of action and make it happen. We've missed the chance to start that process now and will be saddled with Mick for another term instead.

We're stuck in the mindset from when Maps 1 was conceived twenty years ago. One reason people listened to Ed was because he was talking about the "holistic" view. Great word to use when talking about the city. As you said, and as I've said before on this forum, we don't have leadership with that vision, much less with the ability to put it into a plan of action and make it happen. We've missed the chance to start that process now and will be saddled with Mick for another term instead.

Also a great word to use when your trying to simultaneously feign sobriety and sophistication between cocaine blows.

There's no problems with Mick feigning sophistication. He is what he is. Unfortunatly, there is a problem with him having enough sophistication to move us where we need to go.

To bad for us we don't have a viable replacement.

There's no problems with Mick feigning sophistication. He is what he is. Unfortunatly, there is a problem with him having enough sophistication to move us where we need to go.

To bad for us we don't have a viable replacement.

He doesn't need sophistication, feigned or otherwise. He has the luxury of actual results - where his opponent seemingly has only his own chemically induced hallucinations.

He doesn't need sophistication, feigned or otherwise. He has the luxury of actual results - where his opponent seemingly has only his own chemically induced hallucinations.

Results and no plan for the next four years, much less the next twenty.

That puts us right back here: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/34251-okc-mayor-race-2014-a-93.html#post719836

Results and no plan for the next four years, much less the next twenty.

That puts us right back here: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/34251-okc-mayor-race-2014-a-93.html#post719836

Which begs the question I have asked four or five times: What are Ed's plans? Where it the funding going to come from? I have not heard a meaningful answer to the first questions and I have not heard any answer to the second question.

We're stuck in the mindset from when Maps 1 was conceived twenty years ago. One reason people listened to Ed was because he was talking about the "holistic" view. Great word to use when talking about the city. As you said, and as I've said before on this forum, we don't have leadership with that vision, much less with the ability to put it into a plan of action and make it happen. We've missed the chance to start that process now and will be saddled with Mick for another term instead.

Now I'll admit--some of the above responses talking about ongoing cocaine use are downright borderline libelous (but Shadid's a public figure, so rock out with your sock out as long as you're not doing it with malice). Now you say Shadid has a "holistic" view. I'm having trouble seeing it. If he has such a view, his communication abilities are piss-poor. So far, I've just seen a bunch of articles about how he was against the rail portion of MAPS 3 (but now he's for it after losing a vote at the horseshoe) and now how he's against a hotel.

If he has a vision, he's not communicating it. Vision is knowing where you're going. From what I've seen, Shadid is selectively against MAPS projects, something we all feared would happen with MAPS 3 (i.e., the city council changing the projects we voted for).

I'm not seeing a vision, just selective opposition to things we thought were a done deal. Is there evidence to the contrary?

There's no problems with Mick feigning sophistication. He is what he is. Unfortunatly, there is a problem with him having enough sophistication to move us where we need to go.

To bad for us we don't have a viable replacement.

This is why we have a City Manager.

Which begs the question I have asked four or five times: What are Ed's plans? Where it the funding going to come from? I have not heard a meaningful answer to the first questions and I have not heard any answer to the second question.

Um, who cares? Do you think he's got a shot at winning? Guess some still need to whip that horse instead of talking about the future of the city.

His "holistic view" as far as I can tell is "I decide the (w)hole thing and you all do what I want". Whatever that is. I'd still like to know how he thinks he'll get the voters to approve anything if he kills MAPS projects. The only way I see the voters approving an expanded (expensive) bus service is if it is part of a comprehensive transit system that approves rail. He talks about streetcar O&M. It is a minuscule amount compared to bus O&M. Actually, I think his biggest problem is that he knows a little and has an ego telling him he's an expert. He can't see the big picture, which includes education, compromise and patience. He's managed to alienate half the people who would ordinarily be supportive of some of his ideas and actually might have the expertise to come up with concrete plans for implementation.

Um, who cares? Do you think he's got a shot at winning? Guess some still need to whip that horse instead of talking about the future of the city.

Um, we care. You just said Mick Cornett has no plans for the next four years much less the next twenty. If he has no plans, I would like to know Ed's plans. He said he wants to build public safety. Great! How and where is the money coming from? He said he wants to increase diversity. Great! How? This IS the future of the city. You can't say we have been whipping a horse when we ask questions which never seem to get answered.

Now I'll admit--some of the above responses talking about ongoing cocaine use are downright borderline libelous (but Shadid's a public figure, so rock out with your sock out as long as you're not doing it with malice).

My thoughts as well when other people did that. Good on you for mentioning it.



Now you say Shadid has a "holistic" view. I'm having trouble seeing it. If he has such a view, his communication abilities are piss-poor. So far, I've just seen a bunch of articles about how he was against the rail portion of MAPS 3 (but now he's for it after losing a vote at the horseshoe) and now how he's against a hotel.

If he has a vision, he's not communicating it. Vision is knowing where you're going. From what I've seen, Shadid is selectively against MAPS projects, something we all feared would happen with MAPS 3 (i.e., the city council changing the projects we voted for).

I'm not seeing a vision, just selective opposition to things we thought were a done deal. Is there evidence to the contrary?

Did not say he had a vision or view. I quoted the word he used and agree with the concept we, more particularly the leadership, should consider the city in a holistic manner if and when they actually want to address where we are going. They aren't and they aren't.

Um, we care. You just said Mick Cornett has no plans for the next four years much less the next twenty. If he has no plans, I would like to know Ed's plans. He said he wants to build public safety. Great! How and where is the money coming from? He said he wants to increase diversity. Great! How? This IS the future of the city. You can't say we have been whipping a horse when we ask questions which never seem to get answered.

Again, Ed is irrelevant. What is Mick's four year and twenty year plan?

During the drug test welfare recipients debate at the capitol one Dem proposed the idea that if you test welfare recipients then it only makes sense to test lawmakers as well and maybe they suggested testing anyone who receives any government assistance or even a tax credit. I thought it was a good idea, not sure why we ask more from the poor than other people who benefit off of govt.

I'd like to clarify my position on drug testing.
I'm strongly against drug testing welfare recipients, but I'd sure cotton up to the idea of testing ANYBODY who receives government assistance or even a tax credit.
I think the very concept of welfare recipients being a lower class of citizens who are more likely to use illegal drugs and should be tested is repugnant, but I'd change my tune 180 degrees if you had a welfare mom in line to give her sample right next to an oil company president in line to give his sample!

Again, Ed is irrelevant. What is Mick's four year and twenty year plan?

How is Ed irrelevant? He is running against a Mayor who has been in that position for 10 years once the vote comes up. Mick is going to continue what he has been doing the past ten years. He has a track record, he is going to push to get the MAPS3 projects done on time and as promised. This has been what he wanted to do since he started the campaign for it five years ago. He is going to continue to build stronger neighborhoods through city investments in infrastructure and police oficers. He is the face of the city and will continue to promote OKC to the rest of the country. Oh and all of this is not thought up by me. It's on his facebook page. The only thing Ed has on his facebook page regarding his accomplishments is this:

"Over the last two years, Dr. Shadid has focused on transparency, accountability and unprecedented levels of public collaboration. Dr. Shadid has held town hall meetings focusing on sprawl, public health, the OKC Boulevard development and public transportation which have drawn from 300-700 concerned citizens. His focus on social media represents a paradigm shift in the way the citizens of OKC interact which their elected representative and city government."

So, he has held meetings to talk to people. Mick got us an NBA team...

Okay. Talk only about Ed until after the election. Then we'll talk about Mick's lack of plan, our future and the issues. Right now we'll put all that on hold. Flame away on Ed. Post yesterday's news in big font a few hundred more times. Do not look behind the curtain. Do not ask about the emperor's lack of clothes.

We'll have years to come to do that. It can wait.

Okay. Talk about Ed until after the election. Then we'll talk about Mick's lack of plan, our future and the issues.

Um, did you read my post before yours?

How is Ed irrelevant? He is running against a Mayor who has been in that position for 10 years once the vote comes up. Mick is going to continue what he has been doing the past ten years. He has a track record, he is going to push to get the MAPS3 projects done on time and as promised. This has been what he wanted to do since he started the campaign for it five years ago. He is going to continue to build stronger neighborhoods through city investments in infrastructure and police oficers. He is the face of the city and will continue to promote OKC to the rest of the country. Oh and all of this is not thought up by me. It's on his facebook page. The only thing Ed has on his facebook page regarding his accomplishments is this:

"Over the last two years, Dr. Shadid has focused on transparency, accountability and unprecedented levels of public collaboration. Dr. Shadid has held town hall meetings focusing on sprawl, public health, the OKC Boulevard development and public transportation which have drawn from 300-700 concerned citizens. His focus on social media represents a paradigm shift in the way the citizens of OKC interact which their elected representative and city government."

So, he has held meetings to talk to people. Mick got us an NBA team...

I'll highlight it for you to make it easier for you to read since that is obviously an issue for you...

Shall we look at how Oklahoma City has changed during Mick's tenure? Actually, simply bringing an NBA team to OKC (which was in no way simple) has made more of an impact on Oklahoma City than anything. MAPS 1 compares, but that's about it. Mick is willing to listen. You can bring ideas to him and he understands how to implement them. He doesn't have high flown plans that aren't workable. He understands how the weak mayor system works and builds bridges with the council to get things carried out.

Is Oklahoma City perfect? No. It is and will always be a work in progress. But I like how this city has progressed during Mick's tenure. I understand that he and the city are working with Norman, Edmond and Midwest City to improve transit. It's not flashy like holding a public meeting, but if you pay attention, you see significant progress in that direction. The city is changing because of work Mick and previous mayors have done. It's growing younger and more progressive. If those young, progressive people work within the system, they can accomplish great things. But we need thoughtful, stable leadership during a time of change and I don't see Ed providing either of those.

I'm going to put a plug in for "Big League City" for people who are interested in how the Thunder got to OKC. I was paying a lot of attention and it's incredibly accurate and had some things in it I didn't know. We have become more of a big league city, and Mick Cornett was a key player in that happening.

I'd like to clarify my position on drug testing.
I'm strongly against drug testing welfare recipients, but I'd sure cotton up to the idea of testing ANYBODY who receives government assistance or even a tax credit.

Huh? Against testing welfare recipients but for testing those receiving government assistance? Please differentiate between the two.

Midtowner, question for you (being an attorney and definitely not a shrill for The Oklahoman): Would the sealing of testimony concerning a doctor's use of narcotics while in practice prevent those suing him for malpractice from discovering this information as part of their lawsuits?

I think this is the biggest question that has yet to be answered and could effectively end the ES campaign if true.

I think this is the biggest question that has yet to be answered and could effectively end the ES campaign if true.

I think this was answered in post #2296 by yukong.

Shall we look at how Oklahoma City has changed during Mick's tenure? Actually, simply bringing an NBA team to OKC (which was in no way simple) has made more of an impact on Oklahoma City than anything. MAPS 1 compares, but that's about it. Mick is willing to listen. You can bring ideas to him and he understands how to implement them. He doesn't have high flown plans that aren't workable. He understands how the weak mayor system works and builds bridges with the council to get things carried out.

Is Oklahoma City perfect? No. It is and will always be a work in progress. But I like how this city has progressed during Mick's tenure. I understand that he and the city are working with Norman, Edmond and Midwest City to improve transit. It's not flashy like holding a public meeting, but if you pay attention, you see significant progress in that direction. The city is changing because of work Mick and previous mayors have done. It's growing younger and more progressive. If those young, progressive people work within the system, they can accomplish great things. But we need thoughtful, stable leadership during a time of change and I don't see Ed providing either of those.

I'm going to put a plug in for "Big League City" for people who are interested in how the Thunder got to OKC. I was paying a lot of attention and it's incredibly accurate and had some things in it I didn't know. We have become more of a big league city, and Mick Cornett was a key player in that happening.

I just want him to mention the words poverty... The only reason Ed's relevant is that people ride our broken bus system and live in neighborhoods that aren't gentrifying or getting better.

And Ed's plans are flimsy and he doesn't know how to play nice so they won't ever get done, but that doesn't excuse Mick from having a plan or platform. Is he asking for an award or 4 more years. I know what he's done and 75% of it is very laudable, but I think we've done enough corporate welfare. It's time to put money towards a real transit system (light rail/streetcars, bus, and commuter rail), help the impoverished areas of the city, develop form based code and an urban growth boundary, and fix OKCPS.

I just want him to mention the words poverty... The only reason Ed's relevant is that people ride our broken bus system and live in neighborhoods that aren't gentrifying or getting better.

And Ed's plans are flimsy and he doesn't know how to play nice so they won't ever get done, but that doesn't excuse Mick from having a plan or platform. Is he asking for an award or 4 more years. I know what he's done and 75% of it is very laudable, but I think we've done enough corporate welfare. It's time to put money towards a real transit system (light rail/streetcars, bus, and commuter rail), help the impoverished areas of the city, develop form based code and an urban growth boundary, and fix OKCPS.

I can't find it right now, but I remember the streetcar being the tip of the iceberg for a multi-modal city-wide transit system which includes bus and commuter rail. I am not sure what a Mayor can do about impoverished areas of the city or fixing OKCPS. That seems like more of a state issue as it comes down to funding of those items. Am I wrong? What can he do that is not already doing?

So... about all this? Anything of substance from Edgar and the gang or just the continuing harmony and rhythm of the crickets chirping?

wow, a lot of glee flowing in the faith based community about the shortcomings of one of God's children. Shadid faced his demons and is seeking redemption serving his community and drawing attention to the plight of the least of us. Some people need Sunday school.

I just want him to mention the words poverty... The only reason Ed's relevant is that people ride our broken bus system and live in neighborhoods that aren't gentrifying or getting better.

And Ed's plans are flimsy and he doesn't know how to play nice so they won't ever get done, but that doesn't excuse Mick from having a plan or platform. Is he asking for an award or 4 more years. I know what he's done and 75% of it is very laudable, but I think we've done enough corporate welfare. It's time to put money towards a real transit system (light rail/streetcars, bus, and commuter rail), help the impoverished areas of the city, develop form based code and an urban growth boundary, and fix OKCPS.

for real, the downtown plutocrats have had a great run.

wow, a lot of glee flowing in the faith based community about the shortcomings of one of God's children. Shadid faced his demons and is seeking redemption serving his community and drawing attention to the plight of the least of us. Some people need Sunday school.

Some people need regular school.

I just want him to mention the words poverty... The only reason Ed's relevant is that people ride our broken bus system and live in neighborhoods that aren't gentrifying or getting better.

And Ed's plans are flimsy and he doesn't know how to play nice so they won't ever get done, but that doesn't excuse Mick from having a plan or platform. Is he asking for an award or 4 more years. I know what he's done and 75% of it is very laudable, but I think we've done enough corporate welfare. It's time to put money towards a real transit system (light rail/streetcars, bus, and commuter rail), help the impoverished areas of the city, develop form based code and an urban growth boundary, and fix OKCPS.

And while this fictional mayoral candidate is at it, perhaps he can cure cancer and solve sibling rivalry in his spare time.

Not at all sure why gentrification of an arbitrary old neighborhood is OKC's governmental responsibility at all.

wow, a lot of glee flowing in the faith based community about the shortcomings of one of God's children. Shadid faced his demons and is seeking redemption serving his community and drawing attention to the plight of the least of us. Some people need Sunday school.

Yeah, he's seeking his redemption by fighting like crazy to have the past legally buried so those he would be delighted to have as his supporters and voters conveniently be prevented from knowing he's a crackhead.

You really need to stop drinking the kool-aid (or is that Kool-ed?). Or perhaps you're just a really creative troll - I can't possibly fathom someone legitimately supporting this fraud for any elected office now.

$280 of Convention center money could have built a lot of commuter rail miles and BRT lanes. I hate hearing "traffics not bad enough to warrant a lot of mass transit"; put another way there's not a tornado in the sky so I don't need a shelter or a plan. I'm glad we're working in it, but not nearly quick enough.

Mayors can do quite a bit for poverty, especially with a legislature bent on morality issues. That's a whole theme nationally. Low-in com families can spend 30-50% on transportation see above. They can also use their position to lobby the legislature. Partnering with OKCPS is essential for poverty and economic reasons (it's ends the cycle and makes the core more attractive to young families). Also the city can partner with non profits and colleges for anti-poverty programs that same way we've subsidized for profit companies. OKC has an almost invisible housing authority that could be doing infill mixed income development.

Another user commented why is a neighborhood's gentrification a government concern, glad we didn't ask him about Bricktown. Helping support development in neighborhoods increases the tax base and helps to make the city more live able and attractive to the new talent companies are bringing in. Organizing the city into neighborhoods into limited powers of self government who could set some zoning rules and apply for development grants from the city. These grants could help with mixed used development, parks, and mixed income housing.

Not at all sure why gentrification of an arbitrary old neighborhood is OKC's governmental responsibility at all.

So the city shouldn't do streetscapes? Shouldn't heed taxpayer and businesses calls to better police a neighborhood is bad? Should we have let St. Anthony's go to SH74 & NW expressway? So 16th street or Midtown was a mistake?

Where is this idea that Mick needs to have some brand fresh plan for the future coming from? If he gets elected and all we get is more of the same, then I am pretty sure we are getting our money's worth given his track record over the last decade.

Did not say he had a vision or view. I quoted the word he used and agree with the concept we, more particularly the leadership, should consider the city in a holistic manner if and when they actually want to address where we are going. They aren't and they aren't.

Can you give some examples of what exactly is not holistic right now?

That's just not worth taking time out my day to vote for or staying in OKC for... Instead of defending the lack of ideas and attacking Shadid supporters (he'll destruct on his on) those with access to Mick or his advisors should push him to be bold. Bold is saying yeah we'll take a new NBA team even if we don't get to keep it. Bold is making a land locked city with no real river a world class rowing destination. Again. Don't hate the guy, but I'm not voting for someone based on laurels.

I think we've done enough corporate welfare. It's time to put money towards a real transit system (light rail/streetcars, bus, and commuter rail), help the impoverished areas of the city, develop form based code and an urban growth boundary, and fix OKCPS.

At the municipal level especially, trickle down does happen. The city invested millions in the infrastructure to support Devon. In return, we got an outstanding iconic office tower and thousands of high-paying jobs which stayed here instead of going to Houston. Same with CHK and the other major energy companies. That corporate welfare is just how the game is now played and companies which don't get it go elsewhere. As to lower-income OKC citizens, I may sound heartless, but if there's a section 8 complex going up next to my neighborhood in the burbs, that doesn't tend to make me a happy person. That tends to get me to upgrade my home security system. I'm not sure the best thing to do for the city is to encourage more poverty here. As far as dealing with what we have, I'd love to have a more elaborate public transit system. It's just not very high on my list unless it can be something we highlight for out of town employers.

A great bus system? I'm guessing most of your employers (the ones we want) are not going to care about this. A nice downtown circulator connected to a commuter rail line serving the suburbs? That'd turn some heads.

And while this fictional mayoral candidate is at it, perhaps he can cure cancer and solve sibling rivalry in his spare time.

Not at all sure why gentrification of an arbitrary old neighborhood is OKC's governmental responsibility at all.

Me either. Some neighborhoods really should decay and be torn down. I think we are all better off without Sandtown or Mulligan Flats. Other neighborhoods like the Plaza district gentrified all on their own... and it is kind of funny how suddenly everything sprung up to where you now have the old crappy neighborhood grocer next to a bunch of hipster art studios. If we continue to do the big things, mostly downtown, that's what is going to advance us as a city.

Huh? Against testing welfare recipients but for testing those receiving government assistance? Please differentiate between the two.

Clarification: Against testing welfare recipients, but I'd change that stance if testing welfare recipients went hand in hand with testing all those that receive government assistance, incl the chairman of GM, at one time.

From Steve's twitter feed:

"I expected a highly biased, poorly reasoned, poor methodology study and I wasn't disappointed"

-Ed Shadid on the Convention Hotel study.

At the municipal level especially, trickle down does happen. The city invested millions in the infrastructure to support Devon. In return, we got an outstanding iconic office tower and thousands of high-paying jobs which stayed here instead of going to Houston. Same with CHK and the other major energy companies. That corporate welfare is just how the game is now played and companies which don't get it go elsewhere. As to lower-income OKC citizens, I may sound heartless, but if there's a section 8 complex going up next to my neighborhood in the burbs, that doesn't tend to make me a happy person. That tends to get me to upgrade my home security system. I'm not sure the best thing to do for the city is to encourage more poverty here. As far as dealing with what we have, I'd love to have a more elaborate public transit system. It's just not very high on my list unless it can be something we highlight for out of town employers.

A great bus system? I'm guessing most of your employers (the ones we want) are not going to care about this. A nice downtown circulator connected to a commuter rail line serving the suburbs? That'd turn some heads.

OKC is not dense enough for rail in a lot of places. A bus is as good as some will get. Also OKC needs to focus on intra city transit, Edmond doesn't pay OKC property tax. Also it doesn't matter if downtown companies don't care for buses, these companies don't vote. I don't disagree that some of the tax breaks haven't been helpful, but it's time to turn the spicket to a trickle. There's also a difference b/t Bass Pro subsidies and Deven 180 TIF, I'm not to keen on the hotel subsidy.

You encourage more poverty by letting it fester in one or two corners. Mixed income development and vouchers help relieve cycles of poverty, with programs like this a section 8 apartment would be built next to you, but a 60% market rate and 40% low income development would be built. Just because some people would like to pretend poverty doesn't exist in OKC doesn't mean it's not there. Is it too much to ask for a mayor just as interested in alleviating childhood poverty and homeless as (s)he is with convention centers and TIF. Bricktowns mayor is the Eastside's as well.

From Steve's twitter feed:

"I expected a highly biased, poorly reasoned, poor methodology study and I wasn't disappointed"

-Ed Shadid on the Convention Hotel study.

While its not impossible he's wrong, it's is also possible he is. We don't have methodology classes in med school and if the medical literature is any example, most doctors aren't learning it on their own. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I'm not well educated enough on the subject to have an accurate opinion. But I do know that listening to a presentation might not give you enough information to have an accurate opinion. And Ed's opinion was formed before he ever listened to the presentation, as he admits.

OKC is not dense enough for rail in a lot of places. A bus is as good as some will get. Also OKC needs to focus on intra city transit, Edmond doesn't pay OKC property tax. Also it doesn't matter if downtown companies don't care for buses, these companies don't vote. I don't disagree that some of the tax breaks haven't been helpful, but it's time to turn the spicket to a trickle. There's also a difference b/t Bass Pro subsidies and Deven 180 TIF, I'm not to keen on the hotel subsidy .

Edmond will contribute financially if we get commuter rail, as will Norman and Midwest City. That process is already underway. A lot of the streetcar supporters who are active here are also pro other forms of transit. We understand that the bus system needs a drastic overhaul and are ready to do the work to help make it happen. But, it can only be funded by taxpayers, and this is a conservative city. So, it can't be fixed overnight. Most of us would like to see an RTD formed, with a percentage of a cent from sales tax dedicated to transit. That would help everyone, from the poor to commuters. But, it is going to take a campaign, and while MAPS 3 is underway, no one wants to hear about another tax. I fully expect it to either be part of a MAPS 4 type vote or an independent vote for transit. The streetcar will actually help sell a tax for transit, which is one of a couple of reasons why I think it's shortsighted to try and stop the streetcar.



You encourage more poverty by letting it fester in one or two corners. Mixed income development and vouchers help relieve cycles of poverty, with programs like this a section 8 apartment would be built next to you, but a 60% market rate and 40% low income development would be built. Just because some people would like to pretend poverty doesn't exist in OKC doesn't mean it's not there. Is it too much to ask for a mayor just as interested in alleviating childhood poverty and homeless as (s)he is with convention centers and TIF. Bricktowns mayor is the Eastside's as well.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol15num2/ch1.pdf

I would like to eliminate or alleviate poverty as well, and I suspect Mayor Cornett would as well, but there are no quick fixes. It's been tried on a national level without impressive success. We have been able to vaccinate children and provide early childhood education fairly successfully though, and both of those are important. We have an incredibly diverse society ethnically and culturally. We're not Japan or Sweden. Education, not housing or even bus service, is the key to helping some people who are poor and able to use education to better themselves. But again, there are no quick fixes on a city-wide level. We passed MAPS for kids, and schools physical plants have improved. But, how to fix education isn't even something educators can agree on. Diversity in schools may help, which is why I don't necessarily see gentrification as a bad thing. As gentrification occurs in a neighborhood, you get maximal diversity without manipulating populations. But for a mayor or mayoral candidate to announce that they want to eliminate poverty is childishly simplistic, IMO.

Edmond will contribute financially if we get commuter rail, as will Norman and Midwest City. That process is already underway. A lot of the streetcar supporters who are active here are also pro other forms of transit. We understand that the bus system needs a drastic overhaul and are ready to do the work to help make it happen. But, it can only be funded by taxpayers, and this is a conservative city. So, it can't be fixed overnight. Most of us would like to see an RTD formed, with a percentage of a cent from sales tax dedicated to transit. That would help everyone, from the poor to commuters. But, it is going to take a campaign, and while MAPS 3 is underway, no one wants to hear about another tax. I fully expect it to either be part of a MAPS 4 type vote or an independent vote for transit. The streetcar will actually help sell a tax for transit, which is one of a couple of reasons why I think it's shortsighted to try and stop the streetcar.




http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol15num2/ch1.pdf

I would like to eliminate or alleviate poverty as well, and I suspect Mayor Cornett would as well, but there are no quick fixes. It's been tried on a national level without impressive success. We have been able to vaccinate children and provide early childhood education fairly successfully though, and both of those are important. We have an incredibly diverse society ethnically and culturally. We're not Japan or Sweden. Education, not housing or even bus service, is the key to helping some people who are poor and able to use education to better themselves. But again, there are no quick fixes on a city-wide level. We passed MAPS for kids, and schools physical plants have improved. But, how to fix education isn't even something educators can agree on. Diversity in schools may help, which is why I don't necessarily see gentrification as a bad thing. As gentrification occurs in a neighborhood, you get maximal diversity without manipulating populations. But for a mayor or mayoral candidate to announce that they want to eliminate poverty is childishly simplistic, IMO.

I think we're closer in thought than you think. I agree with the streetcar. Part of the reason I'm not on board with Mick is the fact that another $250-$300 mil could have bought a lot rail and BRT (bus as a light rail or commuter line which takes capital costs).

And while I agree with you that school is the biggest factor, a child in the best school would have trouble focusing with gun shots in his neighborhood or going to bed hungry. Also there aren't a ton of good paying jobs in some of the poor areas of town so transportation is a way out of (or in a lot OKC'ers case, a trap in) poverty. You can promote sustainable core building growth and help out the poor. Improve bus service and build a streetcar for short trips and invest on bus rapid transit and rail for commuters. We need an all of the above solution.

Just to be clear with everyone since this conversation has turned to transit and there seems to be a bit of confusion.

BTW, I wrote this in response to OKCUSTU and it took awhile. I see Betts is addressing some of it but I'll post it anyway. If Stephen Tyler Holeman reads OKC Talk, this is for you to and those earlier Facebook posts late last night. Some of Ed's folks are trying to impose a great deal of innuendo about the transit issues as well. Perhaps it will help address them.



Mayor Mick is the Chairman of Regional Transit Dialogue (now in Phase 2) hosted by the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments. We (our steering committee, subcommittees and the URS Corporation), are conducting a commuter corridors study to better define what type of infrastructure and what the estimated costs are to build a comprehensive system. The Mayor is also supporting and directly involved in a bill through the state legislature (to be voted on in January and February) that will further enable the formal legal creation of a Regional Transit Authority.

In theory, a Regional Transit Authority would replace and potentially consolidate the Metro Transit bus system, CART (Norman's Bus System), and Citi-link (Edmond). Nelson Nygaard's 2013 Bus system Plan and the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study could in theory be fully funded. That would provide for enhanced bus coverage, frequency, shelters, and additional infrastructure; Bus Rapid Transit to Yukon, Meridian Corridor, and NW Expressway; Commuter Rail to Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and Del City.

Lets be clear about this, Mayor Cornett was not initially a regional transit supporter. His earliest comments during his first term suggested that he considered transit another way to enable people to live outside of Oklahoma city and subsequently generate their tax revenue there. He was however in favor of improved transit specifically within the Oklahoma City limits proper. There were many times in his first and second terms where he specifically addressed those clamoring for a regional rail system and said that he would change his opinion if the other cities would help pay for it.

Now things have changed.

Mayor Cornett has visited many other cities and seen the overall benefits of a Regional Transit System. Many of the cities (particularly Edmond) have conveyed their support in pursuing the creation of an RTA. In those initial meetings, Midwest City, Del City, and Norman were the three cities with interested elected officials sitting in RTD #1.

NOW we have many of the Councillors and most of the Mayors of Edmond, Midwest City, Del City, Moore, and Norman interested and at the table. In the last few meetings, now Yukon is trying to get involved.

The pursuit of a meaningful solution to our transit woes is within eyesight. And this is primarily due to Mayor Cornett's early position about "not going it alone" and his willingness to embrace pursuing it with these folks now sitting at the table.

Interestingly enough, Ed Shadid does not sit on any of these committees and actually turned down the offer to participate when this initiative was first being organized.


Now regarding the "transit versus the convention center" conversation, MAPS 3 does not provide ongoing revenues for Operations and Maintenance. It is that simple. There is no person that would have a greater desire to see an additional $280 million go to the purchase of buses, shelters, and commuter rail. But if we buy it, how do we operate it? That is why a carefully thought out solution as the mayor proposes in the form of an RTA is the best way to resolve these long term costs. It also best positions us for matching funds for the actual physical infrastructure from the Federal Transit Administration.

The MAPS 3 streetcar is small enough of a system that we are confident that we can find the monies to operate it- parking revenues, advertising on trains and at stops, Santa Fe Station tenant space leasing, and potentially a TIF or change to the BID (Business Improvement District that funds Downtown OKC Inc.)

So some of us don't want to talk about Ed's prior bad decisions as an adult. That is ok with me. We all make mistakes. But regarding tangible evidence on the transit front, I have personally witnessed Ed try to tear apart our process, demonize the mayor, and pit transit advocates against one another. I have known him since the Ward 2 election.

The Mayor I have known since his first election winning against Jim Tolbert. On the transit issue, you have to give this guy props. He had an early position that he stuck to (one I didn't agree with), he forced the other cities to the table if they we serious, they came, and he jumped on board and is literally leading the process.

Forming a long term solution like an RTA takes a leader who doesn't pit advocates and public servants against one another. This (forming and getting an RTA approved by the voters) will likely be one of the most complicated and sophisticated public initiatives ever pursued in our state. It takes stability in leadership and political "buy in" from participating city governments outside of OKC and end even in a different county!

I have attended hundreds of meetings over the past decade. We have never been closer to moving on ahead forward to a substantive and meaningful solution. It is easy for Ed to ridicule our existing bus service. I feel for the folks forced to use it. But it took 70 years of "non-investment" to end up with the system we have to today. Plus the extrication of the original streetcar and Interurban rail system.

Here's a mathematical fact for you I was recently informed of- Mayor Mick has supported and achieved financially annually growing our bus system more than all mayors combined in the past 20 years preceding his tenure.

So whats it going to be?

Ed's idea of playing games with the streetcar system to score political points? Ed's idea that somehow convention center money would solve our transit problem (even though he has no solution for the O&M)? Ed's non-participation in the ongoing processes to actually solve these dire problems?

or

Mayor Mick actually leading us politically by working together with our surrounding communities for better bus, bus rapid transit, para transit, streetcar, and commuter rail through a legitimate long term fix?

My vote is with Mayor Cornett.

Jeff M. Bezdek

Regional Transit Dialogue 1 Public Outreach Committee Chair
Regional Transit Dialogue 2 Commuter Corridors Study Task Force Member
Streetcar Federal Process Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee Member
MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Member (MAPS 3 Streetcar and Intermodal Santa Fe Station Hub Project)

^^^

I've been, as someone else said, "agnostic" about this race. But you won my vote.

But for the record I like Ed Shadid on the council. This city needs a foil like him to keep everybody honest.

Glad to hear it. I'm all for a good critic. I was expecting more of a "leader" from Ed out of the Ward 2 race and that is why I supported him at that time. Other than the personal attacks that have occurred, that is probably what disappoints me the most. We need an alternative voice. But as Mayor- No.

Can you give some examples of what exactly is not holistic right now?

"Lets spend some money downtown. It will be good. All money spent downtown is good. We don't need to do anything else. Not our problem."

I think we have just about all of those types of statements posted in this thread now.

Here's what is. The whole view of what's being talked about in the thread at the moment and about how it is interrelated.

Throw a bag of money in the center of town. Gentrification and Displacement happens.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gentrification+and+displacement

Populations and demographics shift across town. Property values go up near the bag of money. Some can't afford to live there. They move or don't buy there when they are looking. They move to the flats or to Edmond, or they move from places like Gatewood as values rise to Old Putnam City where values are falling. They become part of the Rolling Ghetto as others move to the burbs or downtown.

All of that is intimately related but it's much more complicated by the fact we have decentralized jobs.

Got a downtown no one can afford to buy in, a rolling ghetto and some burbs at out on the fringes you don't want, eh? Think back about that bag of money you threw and get back with me what your plans were for the rest of the city while you were doing that.

Now. I didn't say don't throw that bag of money or we shouldn't have. I voted to throw it. We should have. It was good for the city.

Glad to hear it. I'm all for a good critic. I was expecting more of a "leader" from Ed out of the Ward 2 race and that is why I supported him at that time. Other than the personal attacks that have occurred, that is probably what disappoints me the most. We need an alternative voice. But as Mayor- No.

I wonder if he'll be re-elected after all of this finally comes out.

"Lets spend some money downtown. It will be good. All money spent downtown is good. We don't need to do anything else. Not our problem."

I think we have just about all of those types of statements posted in this thread now.

Here's what is. The whole view of what's being talked about in the thread at the moment and about how it is interrelated.

Throw a bag of money in the center of town. Gentrification and Displacement happens. Populations and demographics shift across town. Property values go up near the bag of money. Some can't afford to live there. They move or don't buy there when they are looking. They move to the flats or to Edmond, or they move from places like Gatewood as values rise to Old Putnam City where values are falling. They become part of the Rolling Ghetto as others move to the burbs or downtown.

All of that is intimately related but it's much more complicated by the fact we have decentralized jobs.

Got a downtown no one can afford to buy in, a rolling ghetto and some burbs at out on the fringes you don't want, eh? Think back about that bag of money you threw and get back with me what your plans were for the rest of the city while you were doing that.

Now. I didn't say don't throw that bag of money or we shouldn't have. I voted to throw it. We should have. It was good for the city.

What are your plans for the rest of the city? How would you fix what you see are the problems? Should everyone be able to afford to live downtown? What prevents gentrification if it's a bad thing? IS it a bad thing? How about the money being spent on the periphery for schools, roads and sidewalks? Is that a bad thing? Who has specifically said we don't need to do anything else but spend money downtown? "Types of statements" don't count, because that's your interpretation of what people are saying. Quotes are much more useful in a discussion.

tomokc- It is probably more of a question as to who would replace him. Would the race be competitive would a good alternative candidate?

Also, he has a enough of a GOTV mechanism to make any future Ward 2 election competitive should he be able to spin his way out of this and inoculate himself with time and distance from the bad past judgement issues.

I haven't seen a single post in this thread advocating only spending money downtown, doing nothing else, and saying "Not our problem". I'd love to see someone point one out if it exists.

What are your plans for the rest of the city? How would you fix what you see are the problems? Should everyone be able to afford to live downtown? What prevents gentrification if it's a bad thing? IS it a bad thing? How about the money being spent on the periphery for schools, roads and sidewalks? Is that a bad thing? Who has specifically said we don't need to do anything else but spend money downtown? "Types of statements" don't count, because that's your interpretation of what people are saying. Quotes are much more useful in a discussion.

I'm not running for mayor. That's my plan, and I'm sticking to it. Yer welcome.

I haven't seen a single post in this thread advocating only spending money downtown, doing nothing else, and saying "Not our problem". I'd love to see someone point one out if it exists.

Here's one like what I'm talking about. Read what was said and then read the response,

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/34251-okc-mayor-race-2014-a-94.html#post720046

Just to be clear with everyone since this conversation has turned to transit and there seems to be a bit of confusion.

BTW, I wrote this in response to OKCUSTU and it took awhile. I see Betts is addressing some of it but I'll post it anyway. If Stephen Tyler Holeman reads OKC Talk, this is for you to and those earlier Facebook posts late last night. Some of Ed's folks are trying to impose a great deal of innuendo about the transit issues as well. Perhaps it will help address them.



Mayor Mick is the Chairman of Regional Transit Dialogue (now in Phase 2) hosted by the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments. We (our steering committee, subcommittees and the URS Corporation), are conducting a commuter corridors study to better define what type of infrastructure and what the estimated costs are to build a comprehensive system. The Mayor is also supporting and directly involved in a bill through the state legislature (to be voted on in January and February) that will further enable the formal legal creation of a Regional Transit Authority.

In theory, a Regional Transit Authority would replace and potentially consolidate the Metro Transit bus system, CART (Norman's Bus System), and Citi-link (Edmond). Nelson Nygaard's 2013 Bus system Plan and the 2005 Fixed Guideway Study could in theory be fully funded. That would provide for enhanced bus coverage, frequency, shelters, and additional infrastructure; Bus Rapid Transit to Yukon, Meridian Corridor, and NW Expressway; Commuter Rail to Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, and Del City.

Lets be clear about this, Mayor Cornett was not initially a regional transit supporter. His earliest comments during his first term suggested that he considered transit another way to enable people to live outside of Oklahoma city and subsequently generate their tax revenue there. He was however in favor of improved transit specifically within the Oklahoma City limits proper. There were many times in his first and second terms where he specifically addressed those clamoring for a regional rail system and said that he would change his opinion if the other cities would help pay for it.

Now things have changed.

Mayor Cornett has visited many other cities and seen the overall benefits of a Regional Transit System. Many of the cities (particularly Edmond) have conveyed their support in pursuing the creation of an RTA. In those initial meetings, Midwest City, Del City, and Norman were the three cities with interested elected officials sitting in RTD #1.

NOW we have many of the Councillors and most of the Mayors of Edmond, Midwest City, Del City, Moore, and Norman interested and at the table. In the last few meetings, now Yukon is trying to get involved.

The pursuit of a meaningful solution to our transit woes is within eyesight. And this is primarily due to Mayor Cornett's early position about "not going it alone" and his willingness to embrace pursuing it with these folks now sitting at the table.

Interestingly enough, Ed Shadid does not sit on any of these committees and actually turned down the offer to participate when this initiative was first being organized.


Now regarding the "transit versus the convention center" conversation, MAPS 3 does not provide ongoing revenues for Operations and Maintenance. It is that simple. There is no person that would have a greater desire to see an additional $280 million go to the purchase of buses, shelters, and commuter rail. But if we buy it, how do we operate it? That is why a carefully thought out solution as the mayor proposes in the form of an RTA is the best way to resolve these long term costs. It also best positions us for matching funds for the actual physical infrastructure from the Federal Transit Administration.

The MAPS 3 streetcar is small enough of a system that we are confident that we can find the monies to operate it- parking revenues, advertising on trains and at stops, Santa Fe Station tenant space leasing, and potentially a TIF or change to the BID (Business Improvement District that funds Downtown OKC Inc.)

So some of us don't want to talk about Ed's prior bad decisions as an adult. That is ok with me. We all make mistakes. But regarding tangible evidence on the transit front, I have personally witnessed Ed try to tear apart our process, demonize the mayor, and pit transit advocates against one another. I have known him since the Ward 2 election.

The Mayor I have known since his first election winning against Jim Tolbert. On the transit issue, you have to give this guy props. He had an early position that he stuck to (one I didn't agree with), he forced the other cities to the table if they we serious, they came, and he jumped on board and is literally leading the process.

Forming a long term solution like an RTA takes a leader who doesn't pit advocates and public servants against one another. This (forming and getting an RTA approved by the voters) will likely be one of the most complicated and sophisticated public initiatives ever pursued in our state. It takes stability in leadership and political "buy in" from participating city governments outside of OKC and end even in a different county!

I have attended hundreds of meetings over the past decade. We have never been closer to moving on ahead forward to a substantive and meaningful solution. It is easy for Ed to ridicule our existing bus service. I feel for the folks forced to use it. But it took 70 years of "non-investment" to end up with the system we have to today. Plus the extrication of the original streetcar and Interurban rail system.

Here's a mathematical fact for you I was recently informed of- Mayor Mick has supported and achieved financially annually growing our bus system more than all mayors combined in the past 20 years preceding his tenure.

So whats it going to be?

Ed's idea of playing games with the streetcar system to score political points? Ed's idea that somehow convention center money would solve our transit problem (even though he has no solution for the O&M)? Ed's non-participation in the ongoing processes to actually solve these dire problems?

or

Mayor Mick actually leading us politically by working together with our surrounding communities for better bus, bus rapid transit, para transit, streetcar, and commuter rail through a legitimate long term fix?

My vote is with Mayor Cornett.

Jeff M. Bezdek

Regional Transit Dialogue 1 Public Outreach Committee Chair
Regional Transit Dialogue 2 Commuter Corridors Study Task Force Member
Streetcar Federal Process Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee Member
MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Member (MAPS 3 Streetcar and Intermodal Santa Fe Station Hub Project)

Thanks for taking the time to write such a great outline of transit planning and Mayor Cornett's involvement. My efforts were rather feeble and this is much appreciated.

That was a fantastic post, Urban Pioneer. Makes me want to print and mail it out as a flyer in support of Mick.

So can we be finished with the false commentary that Mick doesn't have a plan?

That was a fantastic post, Urban Pioneer. Makes me want to print and mail it out as a flyer in support of Mick.

So can we be finished with the false commentary that Mick doesn't have a plan?

Ask jeeves...

Ask jeeves...

Improving masstrans is the be all end all holistic plan for the city? 4 year and 20 year, where we are where we want to be and how we are going to get there. Got it.

What kind of investment are you going to make at 122nd and MacArthur or similar outlying area to 'repent' for investing in downtown? (Seems like that's what is being requested)

How is that investment going to get the same type of return as a similar investment in a downtown district or urban core neighborhood?

The fact is, the suburban neighborhoods were never designed to be resilient places that we can reinvest in. They were designed to fall apart and they're doing a great job. The natural progression of time will ensure that one day those areas are somehow redeveloped- probably starting with tearing down strip malls and increasing density on commercial corridors. But for now, those areas are not going to be attracting interest from the new generation of potential citizens. Limited resources will go further in the urban core.

^ there's another example. No answer other than spend it downtown.

^ there's another example. No answer other than spend it downtown.

Or core neighborhoods, where it will actually make a difference. You can put a beautiful plaza and nice Project 180 street all the way down 122nd. See what happens.

^ there's another example. No answer other than spend it downtown.

I answered your question on what Mick was going to do several pages ago and you ignored it like I knew you would since it wasn't the answer you were looking for.