I'm also going to add that my biggest concern about Ed is that he gives no evidence that he cares about the electoral process or the will of the voters. I see that as a totalitarian viewpoint and don't see how that makes him a better person /candidate than those he criticizes.

Doug,

I'm not sure which of my remarks weren't "comprehensive thought" in your opinion, so I don't know how to respond. I have taken issue with things Shadid has said in the public record that are well documented. Some of these positions are in contradiction with previous positions Shadid has made.

It is also true that Shadid has not made many of his positions clear to the public, e.g. his position on the streetcar.

Hope you and your wife are fairing well.

After much discussion, what it really boiled down to was: they support MAPS because they visibly see what it is doing. They feel it, and they trust the OKC chamber-types that have been its champions. They don't really trust Washington or anybody there to do what they say or to spend in a way that will show any kind of results.

As the words "progressive" and "conservative" are bandied about with respect to local politics, I think there are strange bedfellows all over the place.

Man this is so true. I have zero problem paying an increased tax if I can actually see where the money is being put to use. The only time or place that happens is on local levels.

In light of strange bedfellows and interesting, if somewhat oddly joined coalitions, would it be completely off the wall to wonder if through Shadid and his followers we might be seeing the beginning of a new party - the Green Tea Party?

Probably not as humorous for others as it was when it flitted through my brain, but then, in my head there is so very little resistance.

The bottom line comes down to this, do we continue with the momentum who have or do we decide that MAPS' renewal is no longer needed for our city?

There is still much to be done for a city of our size which does an outstanding job in managing our growth. Look for a city of our character to begin experiencing accelerated growth heading toward 2020. Some postesr can't look past two years up the road. The really aggressive cities plan five to ten years ahead.

Much of what we have just accomplished in MAPS I & II was proposed way back in the late 60s. It took us forever to get the proposed 15,000-seat Myriad built in 1973 and when finally completed we were about 1,500-seats short of the events for which there was stiff competitive bidding (NCAA finals). Our arena (The Peake) was originally suppose to seat 19,599; patterned much like the 19,911-seat Energy Soluctions Arena in Salt Lake City. We do have comfortable seating for 18,203 which puts us in the middle of current NBA arenas.

Oklahoma City's future will be based entirely upon visionaries who can plan for our citiy's future or we are going to be talking about tearing down the $23 million Myriad we built in 1973 and paid $50 million to renovate in MAPS 1993. We should have gone with our original plans to downsized the Myriad to seat 7,500 in the arena and add exhibition space which we would have now.

What are our future plans for the Chesapeake Energy Arena, Bricktown Ballpark, Library & Bricktown Canal? What are our stadium needs for the future? Can we think outside the box?

We need solid plan for the future if we are going to be prepared to attract the kinds of events, expositions and exhits. Having he facilities in place will make the difference.

The arena originally had that number of seats (19,163 or something like that) but this was decreased with the addition of the terrace suites.

We already studied plans to downgrade the arena in Cox and convert space to convention use, and all studies indicated it would be cheaper to build a new convention center.

In light of strange bedfellows and interesting, if somewhat oddly joined coalitions, would it be completely off the wall to wonder if through Shadid and his followers we might be seeing the beginning of a new party - the Green Tea Party?

Probably not as humorous for others as it was when it flitted through my brain, but then, in my head there is so very little resistance.

It's awfully hard to pin him down isn't it? That's impressive in a world of caricatures and media-driven stereotypes.

Actually, being hard to pin down is not a positive attribute in a politician.

Actually, being hard to pin down is not a positive attribute in a politician.

Exactly, you want to know what representation you are voting for. You don't want to be voting for a wandering politician.

As I've said, my final opinion, and vote, is yet to be formed, and probably won't be until after the mayoral contestants begin answering the hard questions which should be rightly be posed to both of them, and that will likely only occur many months from now.

But, for many if not most of you, it appears that your minds are already made up, even before such answers are given by the candidates. I fail to see an even-handedness here in even a preliminary analysis of the candidates, well before they are called upon to give their answers to their respective sets of tough questions. As I see it, both candidates have some tough questions to answer. Shadid has some tough questions to answer, but, then again, so does Cornett.

Other than me, I don't see anyone here who is willing to critique and/or fault Mayor Cornett, who worked hand in hand with David Thompson during the MAPS 3 campaign, for his role during the MAPS 3 campaign. None, other than me, apparently see it is as a blemish to the mayor that (1) he was complicit in the stifling of the press (at least, the Oklahoman's part of it) during the MAPS 3 campaign, and (2) the campaign included at least some measure of deceit in not mentioning that a convention hotel would also require a substantial measure of public funding, at least in part, during the MAPS 3 campaign, over and above the taxpayer costs via the MAPS 3 sales tax.

It is almost as though you who have already made your minds as to whom you will vote are quite willing to give Mayor Cornett a pass on any and everything associated with his role in the MAPS 3 election. I'm not willing to give Shadid a pass on his public transit remarks made in February; neither am I willing to give Cornett a pass on his complicity in stifling the Oklahoman press or misleading voters about the REAL costs of a convention center (i.e., it needing a hotel, to boot, most probably also funded at least in part by the taxpayers.)

If you buy into the proposition that ends justify means, then you may not care about the kinds of issues I've raised concerning Mayor Cornett. That's your privilege. If you want to wait for Shadid to square his downtown streetcar concerns with the fact that voters have already approved that part of the package ... the integrity of the public vote ... then you can join me in waiting for him to make his pitch about that.

But I have little doubt that city government under Shadid would be far more transparent than has been the case with Cornett.

As for me, I'm awaiting the campaign when more information becomes available, all the way around. I'm for everyone having their day in court, so to speak, before final opinions are formed.

Thank you, Soonerguru, for your personal remark ... my wife is doing much better and will hopefully come home in a couple of days or so. Today is her 9th day at the Oklahoma Heart Hospital, which is one heck of a great place.

The arena originally had that number of seats (19,163 or something like that) but this was decreased with the addition of the terrace suites.

We already studied plans to downgrade the arena in Cox and convert space to convention use, and all studies indicated it would be cheaper to build a new convention center.

Aware that we were going to have to build a new convention center as approved in the MAPS III ballot. They said we needed more exhibiion space. Dowtown hotels were in more demand.

What happened with the $50 million we voted in MAPS I to upgrade the Myriad (Now Cox) Convention Center? Did all of that go to improve the north facade entrance to the arena? Personally, I don't see where $5 million went into improvements of the old Myriad. The restrooms still have the old foot controlled hand washer--which my brother mistakenly urinated in on opening night when Dellas Reese was the guest in 1973s' opening. The $50 million renovation of the Civic Center Music Hall is clearly evident.

You are correct about the 19,163/19,165 figure being the capacity when the NBA arrived (ESPN used that figure in their stadium/Thunder site); however, I remember the 19,599 as being the original figure the DT Indoor Sports Arena was supposed to seat, some of the seats were taken out for camera/media purposes and others were taken out because of the cup holders/new terrace suites/boxes. Still, poor planning and/or design flaws. In all, we lost 1,250-plus seats from the original seating design. What was laughable, the Myriad seats were 19" wide' and the Peakes' seats were 22" wide yet the complaints were targeted toward the Peakes' seats.

(2) the campaign included at least some measure of deceit in not mentioning that a convention hotel would also require a substantial measure of public funding, at least in part, during the MAPS 3 campaign, over and above the taxpayer costs via the MAPS 3 sales tax.




I heard it mentioned several times during the campaign that a a convention center hotel would be needed at some point and that public funding would probably be needed. I don't see any deception there at all.

Doug,

Cornett or Shadid? With whom do we place the future of OKC. I know Mick Cornett's record and it is with certain flaws as you have mentioned. Shadid is a different character in that he has openingly talked about his disapproval with the function of MAPS and its role in advancing our city.

You are correct, it doesn't hurt to listen to both candidates and as you mentioned that most of us have already made up our minds.

But I have little doubt that city government under Shadid would be far more transparent than has been the case with Cornett.

I'd like to believe we'd know far more about Shadid's stance on transit issues if transparency was his actual goal.

Also, as a fellow David I'm starting to feel a little hurt. :tongue:

I heard it mentioned several times during the campaign that a a convention center hotel would be needed at some point and that public funding would probably be needed. I don't see any deception there at all.
That's not the case, in my recollection, and I covered the MAPS 3 campaign very closely. If you can point to an example supporting what you say, please do so and I will reconsider what I said.

I will wait to see if any of Cornett's issues/flaws receive the same attention and discussion as do Shadid's.

I am not aware of your allegation about Cornett controlling what was published in the Oklahoman. Perhaps you are privy to info I am not.

But yes, I have made my mind up to support Cornett. He has done a fabulous job as mayor and I don't trust Shadid any more for several reasons. Sad but true. I also see him as less than transparent -- for example he has turned on the streetcar and is not living up to his campaign promise to build MAPS as it was intended by the voters.

I see one guy who "gets" MAPS and one who doesn't. That simplifies the choice for me but doesn't represent all of the reasons I support the mayor in his reelection.

Most of all, I view Shadid as a divisive figure, which I don't view as a positive attribute for OKC mayor.

I certainly respect your right to disagree.

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

I really don't see how you ever got that idea about the last MAPS projects. I never saw anything like being proposed or talked about.

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

The got several studies done about regional rail and one consistent message was you need the streetcar before the commuter rail, I am not sure if the studies touched much on the normal bus system, at least one included bus rapid line concepts.

Realistically though even getting the current system to take out some of the most underutilized routes, segments of a route or odd quirks has been talked about for years and keeps seeming like we are about to do something. It is apparently just a political nightmare to actually try to relocate resources once you have a system, some of it sounds like it is complected by accepting federal money and rules with what you can do with lines that ridership is mostly low income.

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

Here's what is on OKC.gov. I believe the words "rail-based streetcar system" were prominently featured everywhere MAPS 3 was discussed prior to the election. I don't ever remember buses ever being mentioned as part of MAPS 3. I never thought I was voting for anything but a streetcar. I know that when polling was being done prior to the initiatives being created, some people's surveys mentioned they would like to see improvement in the bus system, but that's the last time I ever saw it mentioned.

"A rail-based streetcar system will serve the downtown vicinity, and related transit infrastructure will connect other rail-based systems and/or a multi-modal transit hub. A maintenance facility will be constructed to service the streetcars. The number of miles of track constructed will be determined by available construction dollars. The budget provides for construction of five to six miles of track."

Here's a link to OKC.gov's "Yes For Maps" campaign that was created at the time of the election:

About.com: http://www.yesformaps.com/ (http://okc.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=okc&cdn=citiestowns&tm=82&f=11&tt=2&bt=5&bts=5&zu=http%3A//www.yesformaps.com/)
In the above link, if you click on "About the proposal" you'll see what was outlined for the transit portion of MAPS while campaigning was underway.

ACOG is hosting meetings on creation of a regional transit system. That's a very ambitious project and I've been impressed that Norman, Edmond and Midwest city leaders are already on board. It is going to move somewhat slowly simply because you have to create consensus among varied groups of people with disparate ideas about what the project should entail and how to fund it. I've actually been impressed with the vision of this group, although I have only attended a couple of meetings. Hutch could probably give a far more comprehensive assessment since he is a member of the group.

I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system... I see that the order of things appears to have shifted....

No offense, but the MAPS 3 program was never promoted as a larger regional bus system once the resolution was passed and the program has not "shifted". Not shifted at all. It was always promoted as being for a rail-based streetcar with a hub and connections to it.

I never heard of it campaigned or promoted otherwise. So to even hint that there might have been a shift of any kind as of yet would be a substantial misnomer.

I remember hearing that the streetcar and hub were the start and the bus system and rail would come next, but I never heard anything but streetcar and hub for this phase. Maybe for the next GO Bond we will see bus system improvements but rail is going to be on a county level, not city. Correct me if I am wrong.

It will take a Regional Transit Authority (like DART) before commuter rail - and an improved bus system - ever comes to central OK. It will involve several municipalities and at least three counties I think, Oklahoma, Cleveland, and Canadian. Maybe more. But that is a couple steps away.

The MAPS streetcar was never advertised as anything other than a downtown circulator system. It will be the "last mile" for people coming to downtown on those future modes of transit. They will arrive at the transit hub that is part of MAPS 3. Oklahoma CIty stepped up to the plate and is building a way for commuters from central Oklahoma to move around once the RTA is established. Otherwise they would have been dumped off at EK Gaylord and left to walk across town to their final destinations. It makes sense to have the "last mile" in place so future modes of transit can be successful while simultaneously providing a quality of life enhancement for people living, working, and visiting downtown now.

I am not aware of your allegation about Cornett controlling what was published in the Oklahoman. Perhaps you are privy to info I am not.
Yes, I am. It was the Cornett/Thompson tandem that did so, though, not just the mayor.

No offense, but the MAPS 3 program was never promoted as a larger regional bus system once the resolution was passed and the program has not "shifted". Not shifted at all. It was always promoted as being for a rail-based streetcar with a hub and connections to it.

I never heard of it campaigned or promoted otherwise. So to even hint that there might have been a shift of any kind as of yet would be a substantial misnomer.
I completely agree with the accuracy of your statements.

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

Whatever regional tax or funding mechanism for OKC and the region would be separate from MAPS. The point of MAPS is we build it with the MAPS tax.

I share your desire to see improvement in OKC proper for buses and a better regional system. But the MAPS literature was very clear we were voting for a downtown streetcar.

Yes, I am. It was the Cornett/Thompson tandem that did so, though, not just the mayor.

Playing devil's advocate here: what politician -- or PR professional -- wouldn't try to influence what is published in the media? Isn't this standard operating procedure? Along the same lines, what ultimately is or is not published in a news medium is determined by the publishers and editors -- not an external person.

"Working the refs" is pretty common for public officials. In the end, though, it is up to the news medium to determine what is published or broadcast.

Sorry guys, I really didn't intend to restart the streetcar debate. And I should have been more clear. It wasn't the ballot that brought me to that interpretation. It was the several meetings I attended where the overriding vision for regional transit improvements and MAPS were openly discussed simultaneously. The ballot did not specify bus improvements but on more than one occasion, Cornett and others verbally agreed that the streetcar system would not be successful without connections to good bus services and commuter rail. I have always been 100 percent behind the streetcar and once I heard them commit to improved, regional bus outside of MAPS, I was more emphatic in my support. His mistake may not have been intentional, after all, it was election time, but is was misleading.

what meetings?

Playing devil's advocate here: what politician -- or PR professional -- wouldn't try to influence what is published in the media? Isn't this standard operating procedure? Along the same lines, what ultimately is or is not published in a news medium is determined by the publishers and editors -- not an external person.

"Working the refs" is pretty common for public officials. In the end, though, it is up to the news medium to determine what is published or broadcast.
Do you mean to say, Soonerguru, that you think that it would be OK for the mayor to pick up his phone and call David Thompson and suggest/tell/recommend to him that an Oklahoman article should be nixed during the time period of the MAPS 3 campaign? Recall that Thompson was publisher or CEO of the Oklahoman, and that Thompson was the leader of the MAPS 3 campaign, he being president of the Greater OKC Chamber. Is such a practice OK with you, or consistent with fair play (not to mention full reporting by the Oklahoman), or governmental transparency during the MAPS 3 campaign?

During the MAPS 3 campaign, some Oklahoman reporters were told to step back and not cover the MAPS 3 campaign at all -- they were told to zip it, keep out and keep their mouths shut; some other non-inquiring reporters were allowed if not encouraged to write MAPS 3 cool-aid articles. I personally know of one Oklahoman reporter who submitted an article for publication that was substantially modified by his editor after it was submitted (this reporter no longer works for the Oklahoman) and the modified article was thereafter published but still under the reporter's byline even though the published article's changes were made without his consent or prior knowledge.

You are certainly correct that the buck stops with David Thompson, former Oklahoman CEO and president of the Chamber, who was amply pliable to the requests/whatever of the mayor. My thesis is that they were in league with each other, and as such were both equally culpable. My thesis is that the mayor and Thompson worked together hand in glove.

If I am correct, are you good with that sort of thing vis a vis an ends-justifies-means approach? Even if not good with that sort of thing, since you've said your mind is already made up, I suppose that you don't think that this sort of thing actually matters, one way or another.

Correct?

Doug, the problem is that there are only two choices for mayor. Voting for "none of the above" takes the decision out of one's hands. So, you don't necessarily have to be "good with" a particular behavior or action. They have to be weighed against behaviors of the opponent.

Do you mean to say, Soonerguru, that you think that it would be OK for the mayor to pick up his phone and call David Thompson and suggest/tell/recommend to him that an Oklahoman article should be nixed during the time period of the MAPS 3 campaign? Recall that Thompson was publisher or CEO of the Oklahoman, and that Thompson was the leader of the MAPS 3 campaign, he being president of the Greater OKC Chamber. Is such a practice OK with you, or consistent with fair play (not to mention full reporting by the Oklahoman), or governmental transparency during the MAPS 3 campaign?

During the MAPS 3 campaign, some Oklahoman reporters were told to step back and not cover the MAPS 3 campaign at all -- they were told to zip it, keep out and keep their mouths shut; some other non-inquiring reporters were allowed if not encouraged to write MAPS 3 cool-aid articles. I personally know of one Oklahoman reporter who submitted an article for publication that was substantially modified by his editor after it was submitted (this reporter no longer works for the Oklahoman) and the modified article was thereafter published but still under the reporter's byline even though the published article's changes were made without his consent or prior knowledge.

You are certainly correct that the buck stops with David Thompson, former Oklahoman CEO and president of the Chamber, who was amply pliable to the requests/whatever of the mayor. My thesis is that they were in league with each other, and as such were both equally culpable. My thesis is that the mayor and Thompson worked together hand in glove.

If I am correct, are you good with that sort of thing vis a vis an ends-justifies-means approach? Even if not good with that sort of thing, since you've said your mind is already made up, I suppose that you don't think that this sort of thing actually matters, one way or another.

Correct?

I understand what you're saying. You obviously have information that I don't about the matter. Perhaps you think me a bit cynical to not be as bothered by it as you are. I don't really know the story / stories in question, so it's hard for me to relate to it in the way you do.

I think it is certainly fair to question the impartiality of a publication when the Publisher is on the committee to get a vote passed, but this happens all the time (not saying it's right). In the end, the issue of journalistic integrity is the responsibility of the publication, though, not the person who would seek to craft favorable coverage for his / her cause.

Assuming what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, it doesn't change the substance of my opinion: Mayor Cornett has done a great job and understands the value of MAPS to this community. His opponent apparently does not value MAPS in the same way and has suggested we have a cafeteria plan after the vote to determine which projects move forward and in which manner. This is unacceptable and patronizing, in my opinion, and is potentially damaging to future MAPS votes.

I respect your willingness to withhold your support for a candidate until you have weighed the criteria that will influence your vote. That is your right and I completely support it.

For me, the matter is very simple. I'm going with Cornett because he's done a good job as mayor and I trust him to complete MAPS as promised to the voters, warts and all.

Thanks, soonerguru and betts. If a person's mind is made up before the campaign even begins, much less runs its course, I suppose that little reason exists to engage in discussion on the matter ... I use the term "discussion" in the academic sense in which all relevant information is discussed by people with open minds and considered before conclusions are reached, as opposed to "debate" wherein sides are taken and arguments are presented to support one's position) on the matter.

My intention is to hear both of the candidates out and then decide. I will certainly not be sitting on my hands come election day and will vote for someone.

Do you mean to say, Soonerguru, that you think that it would be OK for the mayor to pick up his phone and call David Thompson and suggest/tell/recommend to him that an Oklahoman article should be nixed during the time period of the MAPS 3 campaign? Recall that Thompson was publisher or CEO of the Oklahoman, and that Thompson was the leader of the MAPS 3 campaign, he being president of the Greater OKC Chamber. Is such a practice OK with you, or consistent with fair play (not to mention full reporting by the Oklahoman), or governmental transparency during the MAPS 3 campaign?

During the MAPS 3 campaign, some Oklahoman reporters were told to step back and not cover the MAPS 3 campaign at all -- they were told to zip it, keep out and keep their mouths shut; some other non-inquiring reporters were allowed if not encouraged to write MAPS 3 cool-aid articles. I personally know of one Oklahoman reporter who submitted an article for publication that was substantially modified by his editor after it was submitted (this reporter no longer works for the Oklahoman) and the modified article was thereafter published but still under the reporter's byline even though the published article's changes were made without his consent or prior knowledge.

You are certainly correct that the buck stops with David Thompson, former Oklahoman CEO and president of the Chamber, who was amply pliable to the requests/whatever of the mayor. My thesis is that they were in league with each other, and as such were both equally culpable. My thesis is that the mayor and Thompson worked together hand in glove.

If I am correct, are you good with that sort of thing vis a vis an ends-justifies-means approach? Even if not good with that sort of thing, since you've said your mind is already made up, I suppose that you don't think that this sort of thing actually matters, one way or another.

Correct?

Um... Badgering the witness? :tongue:

FWIW, less than 2 cents, I interpreted the transit part of the MAPS 3 vote as a larger, more regional-focused bus system and then once enough funds were secured through a regional tax, we would have commuter rail, then a streetcar. Bus improvements first, commuter rail second, streetcar third. I never thought we would be investing in the streetcar without the other two first. I also assumed that the MAPS funds were to pay for the capital items and equipment only (buses, trains, stops, hubs, etc.) and the regional tax would be in place to pay to operate all of it. I think this was why many voted for MAPS 3 and for Cornett to see it through. Now that I see that the order of things appears to have shifted and priority is with the downtown streetcar, I probably won't support Cornett again. I know RTD2 is underway, but last I heard, it is moving at a snail's pace with Cornett chairing again.

I want what you're smoking

Thanks, soonerguru and betts. If a person's mind is made up before the campaign even begins, much less runs its course, I suppose that little reason exists to engage in discussion on the matter ... I use the term "discussion" in the academic sense in which all relevant information is discussed by people with open minds and considered before conclusions are reached, as opposed to "debate" wherein sides are taken and arguments are presented to support one's position) on the matter.

My intention is to hear both of the candidates out and then decide. I will certainly not be sitting on my hands come election day and will vote for someone.

Thank you for your kind reply. Sometimes the availability of evidence is so abundant that one can make a quick decision. As for me, Shadid's position on the streetcar and his opaque positions on MAPS are a deal killer for me. I understand you support the streetcar and MAPS as well, but perhaps that's not as compelling to you in informing your voting opinion as it is to me.

Please don't conclude you're dealing with "closed minds." That is a bit of a reach. Consider that you're dealing with "confident supporters" instead. Interesting how one can shade an argument with the crafting of language.

Thank you for your kind reply. Sometimes the availability of evidence is so abundant that one can make a quick decision. As for me, Shadid's position on the streetcar and his opaque positions on MAPS are a deal killer for me. I understand you support the streetcar and MAPS as well, but perhaps that's not as compelling to you in informing your voting opinion as it is to me.

Please don't conclude you're dealing with "closed minds." That is a bit of a reach. Consider that you're dealing with "confident supporters" instead. Interesting how one can shade an argument with the crafting of language.
Indeed, yet I suppose that's exactly what you have just done. To say your mind is made up (as I think you did ... you have made a "decision," you said) but also to say at the same time that you may not yet have a closed mind (the same being a "a bit of a reach," you said), sounds like something less than a final decision. Juxtaposing your remarks, side by side, presents something of an interesting crafting of language ... wouldn't you say?

Well, then, and in any event, I gather from your quoted comment that you mean to say that you actually DO have an "open mind" about your vote, even if it's only slightly ajar. If that's what you mean to say, that's a welcome interpretation and understanding of your prior remarks, or at least it is to me.

I don't own even a reasonably decent crystal ball, even if I have a fair collection of many beautiful such things. The problem is that, as of today, none of them have yet accurately predicted the future. Maybe in the next shop I step into I will find the one that actually does that.

Until then and as for now, as to the future, I don't yet know how the candidates will formally or informally present themselves to the voters or how they will answer any "tough" questions, or even if either either of them will attempt to do so.

As I already said, I will wait and see.

Yeah - all of MAPS is for downtown and outer neighborhoods get nothing. Wait - what? Sidewalks going in at NW95? Oh......

Sidewalks among first tangible signs of MAPS 3 progress in Oklahoma City | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/sidewalks-among-first-tangible-signs-of-maps-3-progress-in-oklahoma-city/article/3872132)

Indeed, yet I suppose that's exactly what you have just done. To say your mind is made up (as I think you did ... you have made a "decision," you said) but also to say at the same time that you may not yet have a closed mind (the same being a "a bit of a reach," you said), sounds like something less than a final decision. Juxtaposing your remarks, side by side, presents something of an interesting crafting of language ... wouldn't you say?

Well, then, and in any event, I gather from your quoted comment that you mean to say that you actually DO have an "open mind" about your vote, even if it's only slightly ajar. If that's what you mean to say, that's a welcome interpretation and understanding of your prior remarks, or at least it is to me.

I don't own even a reasonably decent crystal ball, even if I have a fair collection of many beautiful such things. The problem is that, as of today, none of them have yet accurately predicted the future. Maybe in the next shop I step into I will find the one that actually does that.

Until then and as for now, as to the future, I don't yet know how the candidates will formally or informally present themselves to the voters or how they will answer any "tough" questions, or even if either either of them will attempt to do so.

As I already said, I will wait and see.

You don't? If you read back a couple of pages in this thread, you will see how the candidates both formally introduced themselves. Cornett had a folksy, nice, uplifting video introduction. Shadid had an agitated rant in the comment section of the Daily Oklahoman (a condensed version of a broader rant on Facebook).

The introductions have already happened.

Yeah - all of MAPS is for downtown and outer neighborhoods get nothing. Wait - what? Sidewalks going in at NW95? Oh......

Sidewalks among first tangible signs of MAPS 3 progress in Oklahoma City | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/sidewalks-among-first-tangible-signs-of-maps-3-progress-in-oklahoma-city/article/3872132)

The voters were promised 70 miles. We'll be lucky to get 40 in MAPS 3. But the convention center moved forward in the schedule.

The voters were promised 70 miles. We'll be lucky to get 40 in MAPS 3. But the convention center moved forward in the schedule.

So Ed's solution is to scrap the streetcar? Makes sense.

For the record, the initial MAPS projects weren't all perfect either, but things turned out pretty good in the end.

I for one am thrilled we are getting 40 miles of new sidewalks.

And how many on this list are downtown?

None, I'm thinking.


N Western Avenue between Hefner and Britton roads

• N MacArthur Boulevard between Wilshire Boulevard and Britton Road

• NW 63 between N Meridian Avenue and Ann Arbor Terrace

• Classen Boulevard between NW 34 and NW 35 and between NW 48 and NW 49

• N May Avenue between Hefner and Quail Creek roads

• N Pennsylvania Avenue between Memorial Road and NW 122

• N Meridian between NW 63 and NW 50

• S Western between SW 104 and SW 98

• S May between SW 59 and SW 61 and between SW 80 and SW 89

• S Pennsylvania between SW 96 and SW 104

• S Pennsylvania between SW 59 and SW 74

• S Pennsylvania between SW 77 and SW 84

• S May between SW 29 and SW 59

And how many on this list are downtown?

None, I'm thinking.

Pretty sure ALL of the trail extensions are out in the "neighborhoods" too.

So Ed's solution is to scrap the streetcar?

LOL. Ongoing line of thought at the OKC Talk event tonight; one couldn't make up half of this "stuff" if he or she tried.

The voters were promised 70 miles. We'll be lucky to get 40 in MAPS 3. But the convention center moved forward in the schedule.

the CC moving forward or back had 0.00% to do with the drop in sidewalk miles .....

the CC moving forward or back had 0.00% to do with the drop in sidewalk miles .....

But it does reveal where the priorities are doesn't it?

But it does reveal where the priorities are doesn't it?


Priorities = build a convention center that will bring in people, people spend money, money builds more sidewalks, sounds like a no-brainer to me!!

I recently saw this video from Velocity about the Urban Award and can't imagine Shadid in this, or any of the other national videos, TV shows, and interviews that have featured Cornett representing our city in such a polished and professional manner. Cornett's national reputation and overall style and charisma goes a long way with enhancing outsiders perceptions of OKC. Those perceptions are obviously aided by the momentum we've been enjoying are will continue to enjoy as long as he is mayor. This city has enjoyed two decades of pulling on the same rope in the same direction, if his competitor were to be elected, a tug-of-war would soon emerge and the momentum would soon dwindle.

VeloCity Vol. 7 (http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/a0d0b5ee#/a0d0b5ee/62)

Nearly 1,000 people showed up for the Shadid rally tonight. I was inspired by his inclusive message and the diversity of the people represented.

Nearly 1,000 people showed up for the Shadid rally tonight. I was inspired by his inclusive message and the diversity of the people represented.

Talk is Cheap. His devisive actions on the council speak louder than the hyperbole of words at a rally.

I'd like to see them debate, it would be very one sided in Mayor Mick's favor. Experience counts.

Talk is Cheap. His devisive actions on the council speak louder than the hyperbole of words at a rally.

I'd like to see them debate, it would be very one sided in Mayor Mick's favor. Experience counts.

I very much agree at this point. I really feel like all I've seen from Ed is a bunch of talk. Tell me exactly how you are going to get the things accomplished and then I'll start listening. Everyone knows Big League cities need buses on nights and weekends, but how is he going to get that done. Give me some actual policy or something.

Now that he is running for mayor he has changed his tune on his support of MAPS. I know that politicians do this all the time but it still bothers me.

He believes in the power of the citizenry to shape the priorities of the council and the city budget. Anyone who can command 1,000 of diverse walks of life to show up for a rally is not entirely divisive. The truth is divisive at times. I really wish you could have been there. So much of his campaign is about his own meaningful journey, and that resonates with people.

He believes in the power of the citizenry to shape the priorities of the council and the city budget. Anyone who can command 1,000 of diverse walks of life to show up for a rally is not entirely divisive. The truth is divisive at times. I really wish you could have been there. So much of his campaign is about his own meaningful journey, and that resonates with people.

I saw him last night.

Now that he is running for mayor he has changed his tune on his support of MAPS. I know that politicians do this all the time but it still bothers me.

It especially bothers me when they want to change something voted on by the people. That demonstrates that you have no interest in the public will, a VERY bad attitude for someone in a decision-making capacity.

He believes in the power of the citizenry to shape the priorities of the council and the city budget. Anyone who can command 1,000 of diverse walks of life to show up for a rally is not entirely divisive. The truth is divisive at times. I really wish you could have been there. So much of his campaign is about his own meaningful journey, and that resonates with people.

Teach a class, become a preacher or a self-help guru if you want to share your meaningful journey. Tell me exactly what you're going to do to continue the incredible momentum in Oklahoma City if you want my vote. Tell me you respect me as a citizen and a voter and that you will support the will of the voting majority, as made manifest in prior elections. If he believes the citizenry should shape priorities, then he needs to support what the citizens have already prioritized. It's not all about Ed. We need a mayor, not an emperor. I've seen no evidence that he simply wants to be the tie breaker on the City Council.

I totally agree, Betts. Tell me what your positions are on issues affecting our city not about your meaningful journey. krisb, can you fill us in any better about what his specific positions are after hearing him speak?

Please delete. Double post. Sorry!

Teach a class, become a preacher or a self-help guru if you want to share your meaningful journey.

I'm so used to "liking" your posts, I was surprised by this. If we want a civil campaign with civil discussion, it needs to be from both sides. I'm not going to vote for Ed Shadid, but I understood what she was saying and it could have been responded to without your quote above. Everybody seems so angry on this board lately.

Nearly 1,000 people showed up for the Shadid rally tonight. I was inspired by his inclusive message and the diversity of the people represented.

Heard from a very reliable source that no more than 500 showed up. Not that it matters anyway.