Activist to seek Oklahoma City mayoral seat

[Platemaker]

NewsOK

Interesting... but if Hunt succeeds this could spell disaster for MAPS 3.

[kevinpate]

Will Hunt sponsor a take an activist to work day if he is elected?

[smooth]

NewsOK

Interesting... but if Hunt succeeds this could spell disaster for MAPS 3.

No worry. first, I doubt this man can beat Mick (he was elected by the widest margin in city history), and second, the VOTERS approved the projects. The only way they can be changed is another vote of the PEOPLE.

[workman45]

Is Mick going to do any campaigning?

[Midtowner]

I don't think a Taco Bell employee really has a serious shot at being mayor. I mean Gary Coleman ran for the job of Governor of California... this is a lot like that. A joke.

[hoya]

Sure he'll do campaigning. He'll have commercials that say "I'm Mayor Mick Cornett." And then he'll smile. And then it'll show Kevin Durant jam a basketball.

He's going to roll this guy.

[betts]

All I have to do is call the DOK and give them some of the PMs he sent me here and his campaign is over before it starts. Or pass along half of his posts here. Or tell them to take a look at his blog.......

[kevinpate]

All I have to do is call the DOK and give them some of the PMs he sent me here and his campaign is over before it starts. Or pass along half of his posts here. Or tell them to take a look at his blog.......

You could use them as content for a new blog. Some suggested titles:
Activism to Go, Please Pay at Second Window
A Hunt for Reason
Hunt Stunts
Hunting - Bullets Sans Weapon

Ok, back to da snow cave for me before the bunnies find me

[hoya]

Wow. I just found his blog. What a nutbar. I think all Cornett has to do is let Hunt speak for himself. "I encourage every voter in the city to find out more about Mr Hunt. Here is a link to his blog. Meanwhile, enjoy these clips of our exciting NBA team." (followed by series of dunks)

[buckt]

Wow. I just found his blog. What a nutbar. I think all Cornett has to do is let Hunt speak for himself. "I encourage every voter in the city to find out more about Mr Hunt. Here is a link to his blog. Meanwhile, enjoy these clips of our exciting NBA team." (followed by series of dunks)

No link....try it again...okay?

[MikeOKC]

All I have to do is call the DOK and give them some of the PMs he sent me here and his campaign is over before it starts. Or pass along half of his posts here. Or tell them to take a look at his blog.......

I remember, he was way out of line. He cannot to be taken seriously.

[fuzzytoad]

No worry. first, I doubt this man can beat Mick (he was elected by the widest margin in city history), and second, the VOTERS approved the projects. The only way they can be changed is another vote of the PEOPLE.

Hmm, but due to the wording of MAPS 3, he *could* use the money for pretty much anything as long as he and the council call it a city improvement. Unless an oversight committee with some veto power is enabled, that is.

[Spartan]

The problem with Hunt and his fellow activists is that they're not really *for* anything. You have to have a platform of stuff you actually believe in, to run a successful campaign.

[rcjunkie]

Hmm, but due to the wording of MAPS 3, he *could* use the money for pretty much anything as long as he and the council call it a city improvement. Unless an oversight committee with some veto power is enabled, that is.

As is the case with 99.9% of your postings, WRONG

[rcjunkie]

Steve Hunt for Mayor:

Sorry, I was eating a pretzel and almost choked.

[fuzzytoad]

As is the case with 99.9% of your postings, WRONG

???

I'm sorry, but maybe you'll need to clarify your statement.. I'm reading the MAPS 3 literature right now and I see nothing that guarantees any of the projects.

I'm not trying to argue the MAPS 3 decision.. It passed. I couldn't vote on it anyway so the vote's not really anything I care about. I just see that a change in leadership can potentially change the direction of MAPS 3 unless measures are put in place to lock down the money.

[metro]

Hmm, but due to the wording of MAPS 3, he *could* use the money for pretty much anything as long as he and the council call it a city improvement. Unless an oversight committee with some veto power is enabled, that is.

Nope, we have a weak mayoral system, his vote counts just as one city council person's vote, so he'd have to do a heck of a job convincing the other city council persons. #fail

[reednavy05]

"filed for the mayor’s race Friday, the last day filing was open for the election"

The fact he waited until the last day to toss his hat in should raise questions right away.

[Steve]

"filed for the mayor’s race Friday, the last day filing was open for the election"

The fact he waited until the last day to toss his hat in should raise questions right away.

why?

[Larry OKC]

Nope, we have a weak mayoral system, his vote counts just as one city council person's vote, so he'd have to do a heck of a job convincing the other city council persons. #fail

Not that much would have to change. If the Mayor is anti-MAPS 3 and there is one existing Council person that was very anti-MAPS. Two of the pro-MAPS 3 Council persons wards actually voted against MAPS 3. A couple of Council persons stated they weren't thrilled with all of the MAPS 3 projects (may be the same as those wards that voted against it). So you have a 5 to 4 split (for/against) right there. Only have to convince 1 more person and any of the "proposed" MAPS 3 projects are in jeopardy. Not saying they are all in danger, but they can be changed by the sitting Council at anytime over the next 7 years or so. A lot can change in that span.

Hard to believe after all of the discussion about MAPS 3 in these threads that anyone believes that any of the projects are set in stone (if someone is new to the discussion that is ok). The only place they are mentioned is in the non-binding Council's Resolution of Intent (even if it was legally binding, only need a majority vote of the Council to change it). Urge all to read the Ballot and especially the Ordinance. Not a single project is mentioned (and the Resolution isn't referenced).

This is one of the problems with the Ballot and Ordinance language that some of us tried to warn others about. The response back was "we trust them".

No worry. first, I doubt this man can beat Mick (he was elected by the widest margin in city history), and second, the VOTERS approved the projects. The only way they can be changed is another vote of the PEOPLE.

Again, the voters didn't approve any specific projects so there isn't any need for the voters to change it. What the voters passed (by the same 54% the original MAPS "barely" passed) was a 1 cent tax to be collected for 7.75 years and to be spent on something (capital improvements). That is pretty much the limitation of it. Sure, there is a lot of verbiage defining what a capital improvement project is in the Ordinance, but after reading it, there is very little that wouldn't appear to qualify.

From the MAPS 3 ordinance (#23,942)

§ 52-23.4. (c) For purposes of this section, the, term "City capital improvement" shall mean without limitation any one or more of the following:

(1) The acquisition of real or personal properties or any interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(2) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, finishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, or maintenance of City buildings, structures, fixtures, or personal properties or on any City real properties or interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(3) Any other type of beneficial or valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, or amelioration of or upon any real property, or any interest therein or appurtenances thereto, belonging to the City, intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it to new or further purposes.

(d) Expenditures to provide City capital improvements under this section may include expenditures for any or all item(s), article(s),cost(s), or expense(s) related in any way to providing a City capital improvement, including without limitation the following:

(1) Payment of the costs of acquiring real or personal properties or interests therein and appurtenances thereto;

(2) Payment of the costs of construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, furnishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, and maintenance;

(3) Payment of architectural costs, engineering costs, or consulting costs;

(4) Payment of project management costs, administrative costs, and legal costs;

(5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a City capital improvement;

(6) Reimbursements or paybacks for expenditures made by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement; and/or

(7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement.

[gmwise]

Wow. I just found his blog. What a nutbar. I think all Cornett has to do is let Hunt speak for himself. "I encourage every voter in the city to find out more about Mr Hunt. Here is a link to his blog. Meanwhile, enjoy these clips of our exciting NBA team." (followed by series of dunks)

I would hope that this isnt the only thing he can point to as Achievements of his administration...
As for Hunt, no he wouldnt be a sane choice.
I dont like anyone to take an election for granted...
Such as the Massachusetts US Senate Race, the Democratic State Party, and their candidate assume to have already won...

[Spartan]

Link to his blog?

[blangtang]

hey, at least there is a choice! 'Mericans love choices when it comes to elections!

[rcjunkie]

Not that much would have to change. If the Mayor is anti-MAPS 3 and there is one existing Council person that was very anti-MAPS. Two of the pro-MAPS 3 Council persons wards actually voted against MAPS 3. A couple of Council persons stated they weren't thrilled with all of the MAPS 3 projects (may be the same as those wards that voted against it). So you have a 5 to 4 split (for/against) right there. Only have to convince 1 more person and any of the "proposed" MAPS 3 projects are in jeopardy. Not saying they are all in danger, but they can be changed by the sitting Council at anytime over the next 7 years or so. A lot can change in that span.

Hard to believe after all of the discussion about MAPS 3 in these threads that anyone believes that any of the projects are set in stone (if someone is new to the discussion that is ok). The only place they are mentioned is in the non-binding Council's Resolution of Intent (even if it was legally binding, only need a majority vote of the Council to change it). Urge all to read the Ballot and especially the Ordinance. Not a single project is mentioned (and the Resolution isn't referenced).

This is one of the problems with the Ballot and Ordinance language that some of us tried to warn others about. The response back was "we trust them".



Again, the voters didn't approve any specific projects so there isn't any need for the voters to change it. What the voters passed (by the same 54% the original MAPS "barely" passed) was a 1 cent tax to be collected for 7.75 years and to be spent on something (capital improvements). That is pretty much the limitation of it. Sure, there is a lot of verbiage defining what a capital improvement project is in the Ordinance, but after reading it, there is very little that wouldn't appear to qualify.

From the MAPS 3 ordinance (#23,942)

There is so many errors in this posting, I'll have to respond later when I have more time.

[LakeEffect]

There is so many errors in this posting, I'll have to respond later when I have more time.

I don't see any errors in Larry's post. Larry is right on - even though only one Councilmember (Walters) actually voted no, two other Wards voted no (Wards 3 and 4 voted against) against their Councilmember's recommendation. Therefore, it is plausible to think that anti-Maps Councilmembers could be voted into office. That would be 3 votes against. Add in an anti-Maps mayor, and it's 4 against. I don't think Larry was saying this will happen, but I think he's right in saying it's plausible.

And, like gmwise noted, NEVER underestimate the competition. That's exactly what happened when Foshee left and Walters slipped in.