Streetcar

[Larry OKC]

Just my personal opinion here, but a Streetcar without overhead wires isn't really a Streetcar any more. Just take away the tracks too while you are at it and then you have the rubber tired trolleys! Sort of like Bumper Cars without that metal pole on the back and the plate skimming across the power grid in the ceiling. it just isn't the same if you take them away.

[Rover]

No, it sounds like LN should resign his activities and let someone else take more of a leadership roll. Let's see how Ed Shaddid gets things done and rallies support.

Let me know how that works out.

[Rover]

What is the drop dead date for ordering rails and cars to make the stated timeframe? When does the actual car type have to be decided on?

[Just the facts]

The overhead lines do more than just provide power. They are a visual identifier that a streetcar route is there and they delineate the path. The poles them selves help define public space and create a sense of place by conforming to transect zone they are in.

[Pete]

No, it sounds like LN should resign his activities and let someone else take more of a leadership roll. Let's see how Ed Shaddid gets things done and rallies support.

This is nothing more than proposing an absurd extreme to argue against when no one has come close to suggesting it.


OKC is very lucky to have Nichols and he will certainly continue to play an important role; arguably doing more for downtown than any single person. He deserves and continues to receive a tremendous amount of credit.

That does not mean he's some sort of omniscient God that everyone should bow down to, especially in matters where he has no formal training or specific expertise.

It DOES mean that with this ample power and influence, he has an ethical responsibility to not abuse it, even in the pursuit of what he perceives as 'right'. And his ubiquitous, overwhelming presence should not be allowed to disrupt the fiduciary responsibility and democratic process of these various committees and decision making bodies.

[Tier2City]

For the last couple weeks all I've been told is that HH would oppose, even sue the city if a streetcar was proposed up Walker. I've had several conversations with HH residents, including board members and HH homeowners for 40 years and they love the idea.

Do you think the Heritage Hills Board will be able to make a formal representation to the subcommittee and the MAPS Board? From what I've seen and heard the Heritage Hills protesters at the subcommittee and Board meetings have been uniformly vocal and very negative.

I've encouraged them to do that very thing. They were holding a meeting tonight to discuss the streetcar. They've formed some kind of neighborhood alliance with the 4 major historical neighborhoods, UpTown 23rd, and a couple others as I understand. The goal is to really bring focus on the 23rd Street corridor and unify some of the regional objectives. This is how it was explained to me just today and so please know that I might have misheard some part of that.

Do we know how that meeting went? Did the Heritage Hills Board formally approve supporting the streetcar going along Walker from 13th to 23rd? Will someone from their Board be coming to next Wednesday's Streetcar Subcommittee meeting?

[soonerguru]

Proposed streetcar route worries Urban Renewal Authority
by Molly M. Fleming
Published: July 17th, 2013


Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners had the simple task of passing its revised Midtown Urban Renewal Plan on Wednesday, but the organization did so without approving its streetcar route.

“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.

Nichols said he was concerned that the streetcar would be connected on catenary or trolley wire, the latter of which involves a number of high wire lines.

“I don’t feel very good about it at all,” he said. “I think it would be an incredible step backwards,” referencing the work the city has done to improve the look and quality of the streets.

The city of Oklahoma City has not chosen a design for the streetcar; rather it is working on the route first. Work on the route is expected to start by 2015 and the car route is planned to be operating by 2017.

Board member Mark Beffort said he did not want the board to adopt the route because he was afraid it would send a negative message to those who are working to create the route.

He said he has not attended the meetings and he does not want the board to appear as if it has a better idea of the route than those who have studied it.

“It just seems wrong to me that we’re committing ourselves to a specific route,” he said. “We need to have the right type of streetcar. I’m not ready to say I agree with this route.”

OCURA Director Cathy O’Connor said the Midtown route was referenced by Jacobs Engineering when they created the four routes that are being evaluated.

Downtown OKC Inc. Executive Director Jane Jenkins is on the streetcar subcommittee and said three of the four routes are similar to the route in the Midtown Renewal Plan.

“We are not anywhere close to finalizing any of this,” Jenkins said. Jenkins said the Automobile Alley board nearly passed an ordinance that stated they would not support a streetcar with the catenary wires.

Leslie Batchelor, counsel for the board, said she has heard from entities downtown that are excited about the proposed streetcar system.

“There is a population that supports it,” Nichols said. “And there is a population that doesn’t and doesn’t go to those meetings.”

The plan approved by OCURA did include changing Harvey Avenue to a bicycle-friendly lane, with an addition of bike lanes and signage on the street.

Also included in the plan is an addition of more street parking in Midtown.

Larry Nichols comes across like a major Richard in this article. Seriously. Perhaps he can descend from the 50th floor and have a discussion with people involved with the project instead of tossing out these red herrings.

[soonerguru]

This is ignorant and embarrassing, there's just not much else that can be said. Not just one person. This whole situation of not believing that the streetcar will really upgrade the blocks around the route. This is what happens when people influencing our development from the top have never been to more progressive cities and still idolize Dallas as a role model.

Never forget that Larry Nichols' idea of the perfect city is Houston -- with a side of Dallas. That is who he is. We don't need any of that big-city Euro stuff here.

[soonerguru]

Very bizarre statement.

How could it NOT promote development??

Especially in Midtown where it's too far to walk back and forth from downtown (for most). I think Midtown will benefit more than anywhere.

He may know a lot about how to extract oil from the ground, but he's not a very sophisticated person, clearly. I worked with him on economic development issues several years ago and he has a very myopic view of the world. It took years before Devon would even offer benefits to gay domestic partners. He's not cutting edge, and while a fairly nice guy, he's no saint. He certainly has ZERO experience to qualify him as an urban planner. None. He has money and that's about it.

[soonerguru]

Thanks for the clarification, betts.

However, it seem strange (and possibly telling) that Nichols even brought this up at this point, since the timelines are already set.

From reading that article, you get the impression he doesn't see much benefit to the streetcar in general and since so many people follow his lead, that's a bit concerning.

I'm not concerned. Screw him. He obviously is clueless about it but it was voted on by the voters of this city. If he has a problem with it, there's a place we can shove that convention center. I'm ready to play some hardball if he starts screwing with the streetcar, but it will never come to that. Let us never forget that his treasured convention center was a listing, bloody, near-corpse that the streetcar, park and sidewalks dragged across the MAPS finish line. Nobody wanted it but him, Mike Carrier, and his minions. To the rest of OKC, it was an acceptable compromise we could put up with provided we received some quality of life projects we supported. Don't ever forget this, and don't let his mindless, empty rhetoric confuse matters.

[soonerguru]

Ed Shadid got it completely right when he dubbed Nichols a "benevolent plutocrat".

The central point being that even if someone means well, it's very risky (and possibly even unethical) for any one person to have so much power.

I truly believe Nichols is driven by a love for downtown OKC but that doesn't mean he's always right. And when he isn't, the power and influence he wields make it too easy to bypass some of the typical checks and balances.

Another thing Ed said: "Even though Nichols may just be one member of a committee, everyone is very aware of the billionaire in the room." And of course, Nichols is on and/or chairs a bunch of different civic committees.

Shadid is right. Except he doesn't mention that he's a multimillionaire, and that he's just as if not more likely to throw his money at people he opposes. These folks are not benevolent. They may do nice things, and be nice to you in public, and kiss their wives (if they have them), but they are about power.

[soonerguru]

This is nothing more than proposing an absurd extreme to argue against when no one has come close to suggesting it.


OKC is very lucky to have Nichols and he will certainly continue to play an important role; arguably doing more for downtown than any single person. He deserves and continues to receive a tremendous amount of credit.

That does not mean he's some sort of omniscient God that everyone should bow down to, especially in matters where he has no formal training or specific expertise.

It DOES mean that with this ample power and influence, he has an ethical responsibility to not abuse it, even in the pursuit of what he perceives as 'right'. And his ubiquitous, overwhelming presence should not be allowed to disrupt the fiduciary responsibility and democratic process of these various committees and decision making bodies.

Rover has been a Nichols sycophant for years.

[Rover]

This is nothing more than proposing an absurd extreme to argue against when no one has come close to suggesting it.


OKC is very lucky to have Nichols and he will certainly continue to play an important role; arguably doing more for downtown than any single person. He deserves and continues to receive a tremendous amount of credit.

That does not mean he's some sort of omniscient God that everyone should bow down to, especially in matters where he has no formal training or specific expertise.

It DOES mean that with this ample power and influence, he has an ethical responsibility to not abuse it, even in the pursuit of what he perceives as 'right'. And his ubiquitous, overwhelming presence should not be allowed to disrupt the fiduciary responsibility and democratic process of these various committees and decision making bodies.

My remarks were in response to JTF': "We are going to have to face reality - we are all just hitchhikers in the LNwagon. So long as he is going towards our destination it is all great, but when he turns down a deserted road and hacks us all to bits there isn't much we can do. Meanwhile, the other hitchhikers in the car are unaware of the hacking, or at least unfazed by it, or heck some even revel in it."

No one, most of all me, is holding LN up and putting him on a pedestal. If he is too powerful, he should step back from being too involved. You can't have it both ways. Letting him have too much power does indeed raise the risk of falling too much prey to his likes and dislikes. Not having him involved may cause a slowdown in momentum, or maybe not. We all have to decide which is the greater risk. If he has violated his ethical responsibilities, as you imply in the last paragraph that he may be doing, then it is time to limit his power. I have no problem with supporting that. However, having a different opinion or viewpoint doesn't constitute an ethical violation. If merely his opinions corrupt the process then we must seriously look at limiting his involvement. Do you think he is not allowing the democratic process? Does he ride roughshod over the committees and are they puppets?

[Pete]

Letting him have too much power does indeed raise the risk of falling too much prey to his likes and dislikes. Not having him involved may cause a slowdown in momentum, or maybe not. We all have to decide which is the greater risk.

This -- like most issues -- does not need to be framed in simplistic, either/other terms.

There is a win/win middle ground and part of that is having people in the community stand up when they feel things are out of equilibrium.

I don't always agree with Ed Shadid but him raising this issue was part of that process.

[Rover]

Rover has been a Nichols sycophant for years.

No. But I do appreciate his dedication and involvement in this city. Others seem to resent his involvement and his effectiveness. There are many many other in this city I admire because of their involvement too.

[soonerguru]

No. But I do appreciate his dedication and involvement in this city. Others seem to resent his involvement and his effectiveness. There are many many other in this city I admire because of their involvement too.

I too admire and appreciate what he has done for OKC. We agree on this. He is human, however, and some of his power has gone to his head. He has pushed against the overhead wires on the streetcar from the outset for what seem to be mere aesthetic reasons. While he has a right to an opinion, his outsized presence on numerous OKC boards gives him a bigger stick to wield. Gaylord is dead. We don't need any more dictators.

[Pete]

Others seem to resent his involvement and his effectiveness.

Another strawman.

Exactly who are these "others" you're talking about? Virtually everyone here (and elsewhere) has expressed appreciation for what he's helped accomplish.

Raising questions about the extent of his influence is not the same as resentment for his involvement.

[Rover]

I too admire and appreciate what he has done for OKC. We agree on this. He is human, however, and some of his power has gone to his head. He has pushed against the overhead wires on the streetcar from the outset for what seem to be mere aesthetic reasons. While he has a right to an opinion, his outsized presence on numerous OKC boards gives him a bigger stick to wield. Gaylord is dead. We don't need any more dictators.

So, my question is, how do you and others propose to deal with this concept that his opinion carries too much weight? Take him off committees? Don't let him express his opinions? Are there things he is doing to manipulate the votes? Is he giving inducements or implying inducements to other members to vote a certain way? What specifically do you think keeps his ego and power ambition in check? When you say he has "pushed" against wires, has he done it in an unethical way? Do you believe he is intentionally undermining the project and the process?

If there is a problem with LN, how do we solve it?

[CaptDave]

The only answer to that is for someone on a committee, board, or city department refuse to adopt his preference for something. Then watch and see what happens. If he accepts the decision and moves on (as I think he would), then no problem. But if the person, persons, or group suffers any adverse action as a result of publicly challenging or denying his preferred outcome, that changes everything.

I think most people - including those of us who respect Mr Nichols' accomplishments - are concerned our city leadership has a tendency to bend to the will of people like Mr Nichols even if their desires are often not recommended by experts or preferred by a majority of the public. Honestly that is more of an indictment of those who exhibit that sort of sycophancy than a criticism of Mr Nichols' influence and participation in civic activities.

I probably could have worded that better but it is late.......

[soonerguru]

Proposed streetcar route worries Urban Renewal Authority
by Molly M. Fleming
Published: July 17th, 2013


Urban Renewal Authority Board of Commissioners had the simple task of passing its revised Midtown Urban Renewal Plan on Wednesday, but the organization did so without approving its streetcar route.

“I’m not prepared to say that streetcars in general will promote development in that area,” said Larry Nichols, OCURA board commissioner.

Nichols said he was concerned that the streetcar would be connected on catenary or trolley wire, the latter of which involves a number of high wire lines.

“I don’t feel very good about it at all,” he said. “I think it would be an incredible step backwards,” referencing the work the city has done to improve the look and quality of the streets.

The city of Oklahoma City has not chosen a design for the streetcar; rather it is working on the route first. Work on the route is expected to start by 2015 and the car route is planned to be operating by 2017.

Board member Mark Beffort said he did not want the board to adopt the route because he was afraid it would send a negative message to those who are working to create the route.

He said he has not attended the meetings and he does not want the board to appear as if it has a better idea of the route than those who have studied it.

“It just seems wrong to me that we’re committing ourselves to a specific route,” he said. “We need to have the right type of streetcar. I’m not ready to say I agree with this route.”

OCURA Director Cathy O’Connor said the Midtown route was referenced by Jacobs Engineering when they created the four routes that are being evaluated.

Downtown OKC Inc. Executive Director Jane Jenkins is on the streetcar subcommittee and said three of the four routes are similar to the route in the Midtown Renewal Plan.

“We are not anywhere close to finalizing any of this,” Jenkins said. Jenkins said the Automobile Alley board nearly passed an ordinance that stated they would not support a streetcar with the catenary wires.

Leslie Batchelor, counsel for the board, said she has heard from entities downtown that are excited about the proposed streetcar system.

“There is a population that supports it,” Nichols said. “And there is a population that doesn’t and doesn’t go to those meetings.”

The plan approved by OCURA did include changing Harvey Avenue to a bicycle-friendly lane, with an addition of bike lanes and signage on the street.

Also included in the plan is an addition of more street parking in Midtown.

I've just reread this article. Molly Fleming may be a nice, charming person but this is not an impressive piece of work. It is hackneyed and disjointed, and raises more questions than it answers.

After rereading it, it seems Beffort is saying that he thinks it's not OCURA's role to choose a route, bowing to the efforts of the streetcar subcommittee and the consultants. Also, it is interesting that the passing reference Jane Jenkins makes to an Automobile Alley vote apparently suggests they chose to NOT vote against overhead wires. If true, that would indicate the denizens of Auto Alley voted that overhead wires are acceptable by default. The final question involves Cathy O'Connor. Was she trying to get OCURA to vote for its own route independent of the options presented by the streetcar consultants? These are all questions that come to mind after reading this article. Questions for which there is no clear answer.

The only thing that is crystal clear is that Larry Nichols by God hates overhead wires.

It is a vague work, to be charitable.

[Pete]

If there is a problem with LN, how do we solve it?

You start by challenging some of the things he says and some of his positions, as we are doing here.

And if he takes a position that many oppose, then you stand up to him in the committee or at public meetings.

You can do all this in a respectful manner and without discounting his ample contributions to the betterment of OKC.

[soonerguru]

So, my question is, how do you and others propose to deal with this concept that his opinion carries too much weight? Take him off committees? Don't let him express his opinions? Are there things he is doing to manipulate the votes? Is he giving inducements or implying inducements to other members to vote a certain way? What specifically do you think keeps his ego and power ambition in check? When you say he has "pushed" against wires, has he done it in an unethical way? Do you believe he is intentionally undermining the project and the process?

If there is a problem with LN, how do we solve it?

These are reasonable questions. Regarding the overhead wires, he has thrown his opinion around, and some would argue his opinion is given more merit based on his station in life. Is it wrong for him to express an opinion? Absolutely not. In fact, his opinion on the matter has been respected, because I know for a fact that the streetcar subcommittee moved to look at other options because of it. That is why I'm perturbed by his dickish statements at the OCURA meeting. He's already had his hearing and has been respected by the streetcar subcommittee, but he shows zero respect for them with these comments, when they are not even merited because the subcommittee has already responded to them by looking at other options (none of which have yet been decided). It is certainly not cool by any measure, unless you think everything "King Larry" says is gospel.

To add, while his tower is a magnificent piece of architecture, the fake-o rock fountain at the Sheridan-Robinson entrance to Myriad Gardens is a colossal Disneyesque atrocity of epic proportions. It looks like a feature that should accompany the Runaway Mine Train at Six Flags (and that is when it is working). Was the community consulted about this embarrassing design conceit? Of course not. On balance, the Myriad Gardens makeover is a masterpiece, but that element is a cringe-worthy joke. Have I ever commented on it before? No, because, on balance, I think the Myriad Gardens makeover is great. It would be entirely reasonable to compare his aesthetic aversion to wires with my aversion to his fake waterfall, don't you think? And yet, the difference is I shut my piehole about his fake waterfall and he goes off about wires in a forum that has no relevance to the discussion.

[Urban Pioneer]

Exactly. There was actually more good than bad in that article. It just lacks clarity. The LN wires issue is not new. That has been going on for years.

[OKCisOK4me]

I was told that when LN was a wee lad in the industry that it was his two cents that downtown OKC didn't need any new skyscrapers nor would one ever be built. I wouldn't take everything he says as if its the new 11th commandment.

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry Nichols is something of an enigma.

On the one hand, we love what he has done for our city with Devon as well as the company's contributions along the river and otherwise, and continues to do. We like, if not adore, all of that he has done and will likely do. I am in that group.

On the other, most of us (at least, I'd suppose) were less than impressed with his anonymous and relentless campaigning in the city council elections in 2011 (masked under the name of the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum). I am in that group, as well.

In the earlier days, his public appearance appeared to be humble, just a nice guy, maybe even "one of the people." But closer to today, he seems to have embraced more of a swagger which connotes, "I am something special ... listen to me and, if you find it convenient, do as I suggest." Always with politeness but coupled with an unmistakeable directive.

Now, to be sure, there is nothing new about power brokers being active in Oklahoma City's history. Those guys date from immediately after the days of the Land Run (e.g., Henry Overholser, C.J. Jones) and have continued beyond that time. More, I would quickly agree that those early day power brokers have made the city what it is today. I'm including Anton Classen and John Shartel in that group, among others.

The thing is, whether it be because of the internet or whatever, the public has increasingly "found" itself as a viable source for decision-making input and has made more of an input into municipal decisions which in earlier times were perhaps solely decided by a cloistered if not secretive few. Public input in contemporary times may be an input that today's power brokers aren't particularly friendly to, or, worse, even aware of or even care about ... even less, about such contemporary input, the power brokers may not have developed an acumen in dealing with and responding to the same.

In other words, does a historical power broker (e.g., the Chamber, Nichols, etc.) even have a sense that the political world is different than it was 50 years ago? My sense is that they do not perceive that times have changed. Whether they are right or wrong in that regard is the question.

My 2 cents.