OKC Mayor Race 2014

[Larry OKC]

On the surface sounds like someone I could vote for...

[bchris02]

Richard's comments in the chat this morning are really making the prospect of Shadid sound scary.

[bchris02]

I missed the chat. Can you summarize?

Steve: Richard: "It's a game of musical chairs. You don't want to be the guy standing when the music stops. The thing that is impossible to predict is job growth and opportunity in Oklahoma City. So if Oklahoma City continues to attract the best and the brightest to bring their talent and treasure and invest in our city, then the demand will continue to grow. If we give up and settle to become an average city that stops investing in its core, then we will be back in the brain drain of 20 years ago. And the demand will disappear. I believe in Oklahoma City. I believe in the leadership of Oklahoma City. I believe in a leadership that has been visionary in investing in the city's identity. I believe we need to rally around that leadership and keep all the boats afloat."

[Larry OKC]

Steve: Richard: "It's a game of musical chairs. You don't want to be the guy standing when the music stops. The thing that is impossible to predict is job growth and opportunity in Oklahoma City. So if Oklahoma City continues to attract the best and the brightest to bring their talent and treasure and invest in our city, then the demand will continue to grow. If we give up and settle to become an average city that stops investing in its core, then we will be back in the brain drain of 20 years ago. And the demand will disappear. I believe in Oklahoma City. I believe in the leadership of Oklahoma City. I believe in a leadership that has been visionary in investing in the city's identity. I believe we need to rally around that leadership and keep all the boats afloat."

This is where I disagree (and even some members on the Council have expressed similar feelings and I am not talking about Shadid). While there may be times where it is needed (as with the original MAPS), that same NEED doesn't exist (Mayor Cornett even said as much when talking about MAPS 3, even though we would contradict that with the campaign message of MAPS 3, of keeping the momentum). The momentum is largely self-sustaining. It was a complete fallacy when the head of the Chamber said that if MAPS 3 didn't pass all of the progress made would be erased and we would be back where we were before the original MAPS. it simply wasn't going to happen. Nothing but a scare tactic.

Government can be the catalyst, then each successful development builds on the next and the next and the next. At some point, government needs to step back and let the private sector do what it does best. That allows government to then go back and do what it does best.

[Urban Pioneer]

I generally agree. We've reached a "tipping point" with the core. If we were to invest more, I'd say expanding P180 pedestrian design to the perimeters of what is considered downtown. 6th to 13th, new Boulevard to I-40, Film Row to Farmer's Market. Finish building the Intermodal Hub. Extend the streetcar outside of downtown to the Plaza District and 23rd street. But other than that, I am at a loss as to further "Mega investment" in the downtown area generally speaking.

[betts]

An NFL stadium???? I agree. The only big ticket item I would like to see downtown at this point in time is the expanded hub, with access to Bricktown from it. There might be something at the river perhaps that I can't think of right now. I'd actually be more interested in a general dedicated "transit" sales tax of a half a cent to a cent. I'd like us to go to a grid bus system with daily service and more buses. I'd like us to begin work on commuter rail between Edmond and Norman, Tinker and the airport. Sidewalks are clearly important and I would like to see continued expansion of the streetcar. I think a lot of the investment in the core can now be made by developers, although I obviously want it to continue.

[GaryOKC6]

This is where I disagree (and even some members on the Council have expressed similar feelings and I am not talking about Shadid). While there may be times where it is needed (as with the original MAPS), that same NEED doesn't exist (Mayor Cornett even said as much when talking about MAPS 3, even though we would contradict that with the campaign message of MAPS 3, of keeping the momentum). The momentum is largely self-sustaining. It was a complete fallacy when the head of the Chamber said that if MAPS 3 didn't pass all of the progress made would be erased and we would be back where we were before the original MAPS. it simply wasn't going to happen. Nothing but a scare tactic.

Government can be the catalyst, then each successful development builds on the next and the next and the next. At some point, government needs to step back and let the private sector do what it does best. That allows government to then go back and do what it does best.

It's a good thing that this type of thinking was not voiced in 1994. We would not have an NBA team today. Back then the cry was "we don't need an arena because we already have the Cox Center". MAPS was approved by the voters and should go forward. I myself am very proud of this City and what MAPS has done for it. Knowing what I know today I would vote to do it all over again.

[Larry OKC]

GaryOKC6: you missed my point. I acknowledged the original MAPS WAS arguably NEEDED. The MAPS 3 we got was not NEEDED (just wanted ... the tax was set to expire and once government gets used to revenue, they have a hard time letting it go). MAPS was approved and did go forward. Same with the subsequent MAPS. I agree, they were voter approved and should be built:

1) As promised
2) On time
3) On budget

That didn't happen with MAPS or MAPS for Kids. The NBA/Arena tax was/is several years behind schedule and only remained in budget due to them cutting some amenities when the short term tax happened during the recession and revenue didn't meet projections (also part of the reason for the time delay).

[BoulderSooner]

GaryOKC6: you missed my point. I acknowledged the original MAPS WAS arguably NEEDED. The MAPS 3 we got was not NEEDED (just wanted ... the tax was set to expire and once government gets used to revenue, they have a hard time letting it go). MAPS was approved and did go forward. Same with the subsequent MAPS. I agree, they were voter approved and should be built:

1) As promised
2) On time
3) On budget

That didn't happen with MAPS or MAPS for Kids. The NBA/Arena tax was/is several years behind schedule and only remained in budget due to them cutting some amenities when the short term tax happened during the recession and revenue didn't meet projections (also part of the reason for the time delay).

do you think it is reasonable to have the expectation that we should be able to project costs/timelines exactly on projects that are not developed and years in advance

[soonerguru]

I heard a rumor today that ex-Commerce Secretary David Lopez was considering a possible run if Cornett does not run. Anyone know anything about him?

Very nice guy. Good business man. Not sure if has the "gravitas" to win a tough mayoral race. I'm sure the Chamber would love him. Seems to me if Cornett doesn't run they need someone who can appeal to progressives and moderates.

[Larry OKC]

do you think it is reasonable to have the expectation that we should be able to project costs/timelines exactly on projects that are not developed and years in advance

Exactly? Like to the day and the penny? Of course not. They have the revenue side of it nailed down pretty good. Why can't they get the timelines and costs nailed down? When projects are years behind schedule and several multi-millions beyond what voters were told, then yes, it is a very reasonable expectation. Thats why they have staff and hire experts to come up with budgets etc. That is why you have contingency funds and the like. That is why you really should have some idea what the project is going to be to come up with the costs etc BEFORE the vote. We do it bass-ackwards and work out all of that after the vote passes. The City doesn't see due-diligience as being important. If the folks they are hiring aren't competent, they should be fired and replaced with someone else. You have to remember that even the three MAPS mayors were in agreement, that if you didn't do what I mentioned (by the way, they agreed), that it was a self-described "disaster". How, after having two of those, they ever fooled enough of the voters to go for a third round is mind-boggling.

[bradh]

How, after having two of those, they ever fooled enough of the voters to go for a third round is mind-boggling.

Probably because, despite the costs, the citizens liked the results. You apparently didn't, and would rather send the city back to the dungeon.

[soonerguru]

Exactly? Like to the day and the penny? Of course not. They have the revenue side of it nailed down pretty good. Why can't they get the timelines and costs nailed down? When projects are years behind schedule and several multi-millions beyond what voters were told, then yes, it is a very reasonable expectation. Thats why they have staff and hire experts to come up with budgets etc. That is why you have contingency funds and the like. That is why you really should have some idea what the project is going to be to come up with the costs etc BEFORE the vote. We do it bass-ackwards and work out all of that after the vote passes. The City doesn't see due-diligience as being important. If the folks they are hiring aren't competent, they should be fired and replaced with someone else. You have to remember that even the three MAPS mayors were in agreement, that if you didn't do what I mentioned (by the way, they agreed), that it was a self-described "disaster". How, after having two of those, they ever fooled enough of the voters to go for a third round is mind-boggling.

It's really not "mind boggling." The citizens accepted the fact that the end result was better than not doing it, regardless of its imperfections. It's hard to imagine something as large as a MAPS initiative not having hiccups and setbacks. Your bromides against MAPS are tiresome.

Will we benefit from having these projects completed? Absolutely. Even the ones I'm not crazy about, the Fairgrounds improvements, Convention Center, etc., will still be high quality improvements to our city.

It's really simple: the taxpayers continue to believe in investing in our city. They've seen what has happened to our city as a result of public investments in the past and want more. It's a good thing.

Where I agree with you is in holding city leadership and our elected representatives accountable for good stewardship of the process.

[Larry OKC]

soonerguru: thanks for the last comment. So why don't we do hold them accountable?

[king183]

I heard a rumor that has me worried. Apparently there are several city powerbrokers who are trying to recruit Jeff Cloud to run for mayor. I voted for Jeff on Corporation Commission, but I'm not sure he has what we need in a mayor. I remember he ran for Congress, but dropped out of the race when a better opportunity along. Then he resigned his Corporation Commission seat to take another job, leaving about 3 years early.

I don't know much about Jeff, but I'm not sure I want someone as our mayor if he's constantly looking for the next best opportunity, rather than being focused on the city's business. Can someone convince me he'd be a good candidate?

The other reason this has me worried is because many of the powerbrokers allegedly attempting to recruit Cloud are backers of Cornett. That would seem to indicate to me Cornett has told them he isn't running. Again, that's just if the rumor is true.

My main priority at this point is ensuring Ed Shadid doesn't become mayor, but it may be a lost cause if we don't have someone running against him who would actually do a good job.

[catch22]

I have said it before, I will say it again....May the Lord help us all if Shadid is elected. W

He is a wolf in a lamb's clothing. He appears to be a great urbanist thinker, plenty of ideas to help the core of OKC and gain the votes of the young urban demographic. But at heart he does not like the things OKC is doing with MAPS3, and he is confident that his way is best even if that means going against the voter's will. We cannot have such a negative, disorderly, and fractious attitude as the cheerleader of OKC. We need a cheerful personality, who can keep the city united and moving forward into the great city that OKC is destined to become. Not regress into Tulsa style politics and dysfunction.

[OSUFan]

My problem with Shadid is when he first announced he was running for Council he started off as anti-MAPs 3. He changed his tone as we got closer to the election. Now he seems to be taking the stance and running on the fact the MAPs process doesn't work. I just don't see how he can mess up the process then run on the fact the process is messed up.

[adaniel]

I've been thinking lately what a Shadid victory would look like. He could certainly pull it off, especially in the increasingly likely scenario that Cornett decides to hang it up after this term. But it would be the most unholy of alliances that would need to be strung together.

Usually the urban core would go for a progressive candidate like Shadid fairly easy, but from just looking at this board that is far from guaranteed. And even if he were to get all of the 44/235/40 loop, thats only at most 75-80K people, with the entire 240/44/35 core only at most 225K out of a city of 600K. And within the core is several groups (AA on the NE, Hispanic and blue collar white down South, mix of everything NW) that would splinter based on their own needs and perceptions.

Most suburban areas outside of that tend to go for the moderate, chamber-of-commerce republican types, especially on the N and NW sides that supported MAPS3 big. So that part of town is off limits for him. But there is enough tea party-types on the south and west side that have never cared for Cornett and could be receptive to the "downtown gets too much money" argument. Also, there are all of the conservative rural pockets that collectively make up a very small percentage of the city but rejected MAPS3 resoundingly.

Notice the only paths to a Shadid victory require him to run against MAPS3. Hence why he probably came out positioning himself against the streetcar. But he can't go too far to that side, because the progressive urban types in DT/NW core support MAPS and are going to be the ones funding him, so you can't piss those folks off. Essentially, he would have to divide and conquer and be willing to isolate a lot of people, which is right out of the "how to get elected in Tulsa" playbook.

He has got a very delicate path to walk and a narrow path to victory. But stranger things have happened.

[Midtowner]

I've been thinking lately what a Shadid victory would look like. He could certainly pull it off, especially in the increasingly likely scenario that Cornett decides to hang it up after this term. But it would be the most unholy of alliances that would need to be strung together.

This unholy alliance (as you put it) has been attempted and has already failed. Recall that the "No" side leveraged the power of the Tea Party, the fire unions and the FOP, not to mention a heavy slant from local talk radio. The MAPS III vote took place and the "yes" side was highly energized and still won by a high margin. Shadid needs to strongly clarify his stance with regard to MAPS. While I am greatly on the side of transparency in government, which he seems to be a champion of, I think MAPS III, as marketed to the public needs to be completed or the MAPS brand is dead. I don't care whether some of the projects are duds, this was passed on a "trust us" sort of plan. Either they were telling the truth or they're liars.

It's a shame. I think Shadid is a fine public servant, but so often, public servants get laser-focused on the good they can do right now. The rail system might be a horrible idea. The convention center might turn into a horrible albatross. The voters have spoken. Respect that. Those on the shoe right now need to recognize the importance of the MAPS brand more than the merits of any individual projects.

Usually the urban core would go for a progressive candidate like Shadid fairly easy, but from just looking at this board that is far from guaranteed. And even if he were to get all of the 44/235/40 loop, thats only at most 75-80K people, with the entire 240/44/35 core only at most 225K out of a city of 600K. And within the core is several groups (AA on the NE, Hispanic and blue collar white down South, mix of everything NW) that would splinter based on their own needs and perceptions.

Most suburban areas outside of that tend to go for the moderate, chamber-of-commerce republican types, especially on the N and NW sides that supported MAPS3 big. So that part of town is off limits for him. But there is enough tea party-types on the south and west side that have never cared for Cornett and could be receptive to the "downtown gets too much money" argument. Also, there are all of the conservative rural pockets that collectively make up a very small percentage of the city but rejected MAPS3 resoundingly.

Notice the only paths to a Shadid victory require him to run against MAPS3. Hence why he probably came out positioning himself against the streetcar. But he can't go too far to that side, because the progressive urban types in DT/NW core support MAPS and are going to be the ones funding him, so you can't piss those folks off. Essentially, he would have to divide and conquer and be willing to isolate a lot of people, which is right out of the "how to get elected in Tulsa" playbook.

Considering he's talking openly about cutting projects which are very important to the liberal urban core, I doubt he'd do well there. The Chamber will want to spend a boatload of money on Shadid, and simply stating his apparent opposition to MAPS projects is going to kill him with progressives and conservatives alike.

If Shadid wants to have a shot, he needs to state right now that he is unequivocally in favor of producing the MAPS projects as promised and repeat that line when questioned about it. Hell, make the protection of the MAPS legacy a central part of his campaign. The candidate who recognizes how popular MAPS is and hitches to its coattails first will have a huge advantage.

He has got a very delicate path to walk and a narrow path to victory. But stranger things have happened.

Absent the aforementioned pivot on MAPS issues, I don't see this happening.

[s00nr1]

Mick is in for re-election. I personally can't wait to see this campaign against Shadid.

[warreng88]

Mick is in for re-election. I personally can't wait to see this campaign against Shadid.

Has he publicly stated it and I just missed it or is this insider info?

[s00nr1]

Mick Cornett for Mayor

Has he publicly stated it and I just missed it or is this insider info?

[Urban Pioneer]

All I can think about is the hypocrisy in the million or so that is about to be burned by Shadid that could be spent on better bus stops.

[adaniel]

Considering he's talking openly about cutting projects which are very important to the liberal urban core, I doubt he'd do well there. The Chamber will want to spend a boatload of money on Shadid, and simply stating his apparent opposition to MAPS projects is going to kill him with progressives and conservatives alike.

Not disagreeing with you at all. But as a resident of the inner core, it is amazing to me how many people around here are unaware of his position on MAPS. They completely have their head in the clouds about Shadid (He is the progressive candidate!) and I don't think any amount of convincing by the Chamber is going to change their opinions. The sad thing is that I fear his (likely) defeat will be a setback to any sort of progressive movement in this city.

All I can think about is the hypocrisy in the million or so that is about to be burned by Shadid that could be spent on better bus stops.

Boom.

[soonerguru]

Not disagreeing with you at all. But as a resident of the inner core, it is amazing to me how many people around here are unaware of his position on MAPS. They completely have their head in the clouds about Shadid (He is the progressive candidate!) and I don't think any amount of convincing by the Chamber is going to change their opinions. The sad thing is that I fear his (likely) defeat will be a setback to any sort of progressive movement in this city.



Boom.

He hasn't taken a PUBLIC position. There isn't one. PRIVATELY, he's working behind the scenes in ways that may surprise many of his would-be supporters. The gist of what he is saying is "NOT THIS MAPS." Ring familiar?

And as a committed progressive, I don't see Shadid's defeat as hurting our cause. His election would probably be worse. He has shown that he lacks focus on issues, and while he's very good at asking questions, he's not very good at providing answers. Leadership is very difficult; it's much easier to be a critic.

One could argue that Cornett is a progressive in disguise: he managed to shepherd through the ONLY citizen-supported public transportation initiative in OKC in my lifetime (one that it seems Shadid is trying to derail). He supported Shadid's LGBT equality in employment resolution. He has been very willing to listen to and support urban-focused initiatives, and he has been as good of a spokesperson for our city as we've ever had. And he's done all of this without demonizing people from different political camps and causing unholy division.

We're supposed to have non-partisan city elections. Cornett has largely stayed true to this. He has certainly been responsive to the needs and goals of inner-city residents -- and he has been effective in explaining why improving our inner city is beneficial to suburban voters.

In my book, to be "progressive" you must be able to accomplish positive change, not just issue hollow platitudes. While MAPS 3 has had its hiccups, it's Mayor Cornett's to own and by announcing his intention to seek reelection, he is telling us that he will take ownership of the results.

ON EDIT: I think Cornett will actively pursue progressive voters in this race. To win, you have to have a broad coalition of voters. The more progressive support he receives, the more focus he will have on progressive issues. I would argue that he already gets the key civic issues we have: we want to build a city with better quality of life, better public transit, more bike trails and sidewalks, more density, and more walkability. A community more accepting and tolerant of diversity. Add to this his nationally recognized effort to improve our public health. I think he gets the issues we care about, and more importantly, he has already delivered on most of them.