OKC Mayor Race 2014

[adaniel]

South OKC on the path to victory for Shadid | 200 Walker OKC

I know we shouldn't think about these things in more partisan terms, but lets be realistic.

Do you REALLY think an area that has given us right-wingers like Brian Walters, Ralph "don't eat that aborted fetus" Shorty, and the capitol's favorite wingnut Mike Reynolds are suddenly going to vote for a former Green Party candidate en masse?

[jerrywall]

Yeah, that title is definitely misleading. Reading the article the conclusion seems to be that South OKC is a must win, in order for Shadid to even have a chance.

[Urban Pioneer]

There is not much data available. Dude is doing the best he can.

That's my point. Not trying to be overly critical of the guy, but if your trying to be the "Nate Silver" of OKC, the MAPS 3 election would be a better reference point than the Hunt versus Mayor election results.

The sampling is of an "educated audience", "high" turn out, and ironically has the same sort of organized opposition involved.

It just seems to me to be a better reference point. The reality is that this election will probably establish a new historic reference point in itself due to the money and organizational capacity predicted to be involved.

[kevinpate]

If a candidate seems to be poised to pander/solicit/appeal [pick one or more] to a group of aginners of a process like MAPs3, which is reasonably successful, or better, then he simply must not only capture the heats, minds, wallets and v-day commitment of those people, he has to also convince quite a few of their polar opposites to alter their mindset as well.

That's a tall order for any politico, but especially a novice.

[Doug Loudenback]

Originally Posted by soonerguru
Should we start a separate thread for Larry? How about "Larry's Musings on City Government, Right and Wrong"? It could serve as a place for Larry to critique all city issues, from MAPS to city bond elections. Then, we could get back to discussion on the mayoral race.

Originally posted by Midtowner
I'm sure we could all benefit to hear his "expert" opinions on these matters.
=

No need exists to denigrate Larry for posting his opinions. That's what all of us do ... post opinions. I guess that the two o' youtz, Soonerguru and Midtowner, that you are higher and mightier than in days gone by and are presently comfortable in saying what you said. Perhaps separate threads are needed ... for the two o' youtz, as well.

Truth is ... some of Larry's opinions have merit, some of yours do, too. Others still are crap, IMO. I'll leave it to you, my friends, to ferret out the wheat from the chaff. From your posts, it sounds as though you you perceive that you have both the willingness and the credentials to do so. Make it so.

[Laramie]

This message board is a vehicle by which we all are allowed to expressed ourselves. We are all thankful to Pete for providing us a place to share our Opinions, Attitudes & Beliefs.

"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us."--Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[Antler dad]

I don't think you are correct.

Yet no one has posted a constitutional provision or statute which prohibits a city council from logrolling. Like Doug, I have not found one. I do believe that Art.5 is directed at the Legislature and defines that term as not including a city council or vote of a city. I am just looking for the legal authority anyone who would challenge maps 3 as logrolling (which it wasn't) would rely on. If it is Art. 5, good luck to them.

[Urban Pioneer]

If a candidate seems to be poised to pander/solicit/appeal [pick one or more] to a group of aginners of a process like MAPs3, which is reasonably successful, or better, then he simply must not only capture the heats, minds, wallets and v-day commitment of those people, he has to also convince quite a few of their polar opposites to alter their mindset as well.

That's a tall order for any politico, but especially a novice.

Totally true.

[Edgar]

Yet no one has posted a constitutional provision or statute which prohibits a city council from logrolling. Like Doug, I have not found one. I do believe that Art.5 is directed at the Legislature and defines that term as not including a city council or vote of a city. I am just looking for the legal authority anyone who would challenge maps 3 as logrolling (which it wasn't) would rely on. If it is Art. 5, good luck to them.

Whether it passes constitutional muster or not, MAPSIII a textbook example of logrolling and bait and switch to get the unpopular convention center built first, and oh yah forgot to mention, it's going need a hotel. Voters will have to approve a MAPSIV if they want the items they actually voted for, or spite themselves. Mick must have leaned that shell game in a marketing class.

[betts]

I seriously doubt the Convention Center was Mick's idea. I suspect this was a Chamber pet project. Remember also that a majority of the Council had to go along as well to get it included. The mayor, if he or she is a leader, can suggest things and help get things attention, but with our weak mayor system, in the end they're only one vote of 9. And, while I would be fine with the Convention Center not being built in its current, planned location, I'm also a believer that with MAPS everybody works together to get things they want. I wasn't interested in the white water course or anything planned at the fairgrounds, I already have sidewalks and I don't use the trails. But they are good things to other people. That's how MAPS works and why it works - none of these projects might have passed as stand alone projects. Nor might any of the original MAPS projects. Raise your hand if you long for the OKC of the 70s.

I'm for ANY projects that increase the gravitas and awareness of OKC. I'm for any projects that improve quality of life for the citizens. I think MAPS is one of the best civic creations around. My mother's town of 50,000 recently passed a similar set of projects under a single vote (a different state, so no one cares) and the citizens are thrilled with the results. They just got the State Fair moved to their city because of fairground upgrades, which is a huge financial windfall for them. Sound familiar? As I have said before, anyone who has a problem with MAPS either wasn't alive in the 70s and 80s, didn't live here or wasn't paying attention.

Thank you mayors of OKC (since that horrific time in the history if this city).

[Rover]

Whether it passes constitutional muster or not, MAPSIII a textbook example of logrolling and bait and switch to get the unpopular convention center built first, and oh yah forgot to mention, it's going need a hotel. Voters will have to approve a MAPSIV if they want the items they actually voted for, or spite themselves. Mick must have leaned that shell game in a marketing class.

Thats funny, I think Maps3 is progressing as most people voted for. Some people though could buy a $100 bill for 10 cents and complain they weren't given a $1,000 bill. Maps3 will be popular when finished and Maps 4 will stand a pretty good chance of passing unless special interest groups start thinking they know what is best for the rest of us and torpedo the passing of anything but their pet project. As Betts so well states, we vote for things that may not directly benefit us as individuals, but are smart enough to know how it helps the city in general and us indirectly. Some people can't see past their own selfish interests and vote against everything else. Those are probably the ones who held their breath and passed out when they were kids.

[Edgar]

Thats funny, I think Maps3 is progressing as most people voted for. Some people though could buy a $100 bill for 10 cents and complain they weren't given a $1,000 bill. Maps3 will be popular when finished and Maps 4 will stand a pretty good chance of passing unless special interest groups start thinking they know what is best for the rest of us and torpedo the passing of anything but their pet project. As Betts so well states, we vote for things that may not directly benefit us as individuals, but are smart enough to know how it helps the city in general and us indirectly. Some people can't see past their own selfish interests and vote against everything else. Those are probably the ones who held their breath and passed out when they were kids.

Agreed, Mick is a chamber tool and toady of barons for sure. He was willing to forever change council protocol and not delay the MAPSIII timeline vote until Dr Shadid could get back in town after his flight was cancelled. MAPIII hijacked the process and will make any future votes difficult I would imagine. Will our barons cover the operating deficits the cc is going to generate since it's mostly their quality of life it's going to improve?

[betts]

Actually, Dr. Shadid and his cronies are working harder to damage the MAPS brand than any tea partiers out there. As usual, politics makes strange bedfellows. The sad thing is, if he succeeds, the spillover to projects he would like to fund may be profound, and irretrievably damage public willingness to fund projects that don't directly benefit themselves. Shortsightedness is not a useful trait for political leadership.

[Laramie]

MAPS has been fruitful for the overall impression and reputation of Oklahoma City. Mayor Mick Cornett did embrace MAPS' development and pushed to improve the overall image and comestic makeover to make OKC more physically attractive.

Interesting that San Antonio would joke about Oklahoma City's Bricktown Canal; at least we are able to clean the canal every two years. You wouldn't believe what I saw floating (appearance: sludge log) in the green water of the SA Riverwalk? I'm not one to gossip, and you didn't hear that from me (laughing).

Here are some excerpts from an article (link below) about progress in our city:

"The Bricktown Canal might be artificial and might be the subject of jokes, but it was conceived by progressive forces in Oklahoma City who saw, specifically, how much the Paseo del Rio in San Antonio served as the foundation of a tourist and convention economy now worth an estimated $13 billion a year. I still remember during Mayor Bill Thornton’s administration in the mid-1990s traveling with a city-led delegation to Monterrey, where San Antonio engineers were overseeing an urban canal project similar to the one they were overseeing in Oklahoma City while also working on the expanded Convention Center stretch of the River Walk.

Oklahoma City, like San Antonio, is still a city trying to make its core central district one that will attract and keep smart, educated young people. Oklahoma City 20 years ago didn’t stand a chance. Now it does. So while the Spurs are taking on the Thunder, we can bait our Red River neighbors with cheap put-downs, or we can spend time between games learning from a regional sister city that can teach us a lot about vision, cohesiveness and tenacity — at least off the basketball court".

This article:
Way More than OK: Oklahoma City is a City to Embrace, not Bash | The Rivard Report

Oklahoma City is a work-in-progress (--to be continued). There are still a lot of eye-sore structures and areas which need to be addressed...

Will Dr. Shadid continue to address or undress these concerns?

[krisb]

There is more to being a mayor in Oklahoma City than supporting or not supporting MAPS. To make complete progress as a city we need to address our bus system, health disparities, crime, poverty, and diversity issues to name a few. I completely support the progress we have made only if it means everyone in the city will benefit. There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

[zookeeper]

There is more to being a mayor in Oklahoma City than supporting or not supporting MAPS. To make complete progress as a city we need to address our bus system, health disparities, crime, poverty, and diversity issues to name a few. I completely support the progress we have made only if it means everyone in the city will benefit. There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

Diversity issues? What should a mayor be doing? Be specific if you can.

[Urban Pioneer]

There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

Going to be straight up about this. If there is any one thing that is p***ing me off as a US citizen, it is the growing disparity between income and sustainability. Whether it is Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, or Reagan, this country has been and is on a precipitous decline with regards to income equality. It p***es me off to no end that the banking industry and Wall Street got off without a hitch with the toxic asset infusion and subsequent bailout by our fair citizens provided them. And yet still, the bailout of these companies did not translate into any kind of meaningful reinvestment in our US economy... JUST MORE SQUEEZING

With that stated, after volunteering for ED and seeing his subsequent irrational assault on our local business community and our city-wide collective "all together" pursuit of a better life here, there is no way his "leadership" could ever claim this picture below over Cornett and the "boogeyman chamber junta" (as Spartan would call it).

[betts]

In addition, poverty is a national problem that is very hard to affect at the local level. Improving schools helps, but again, much of the financial decisions are a state issue. Frankly, improving our downtown may help as much as anything we can do on a city-wide level. We've seen it increase jobs and lower unemployment. But also, as we improve our downtown, people move back in towards the center city. That has been proven to improve schools, and diversity in city schools is good for people of lower and higher income. Education is the key to improving quality of life.

Also, it's rather patronizing of us to assume the poor don't enjoy leisure time activities. Are they somehow different from the rest of us? I take care of their children, and I see more Thunder gear and find as many Thunder fans among the poor as any socioeconomic group. Do they not enjoy parks or the playgrounds on the river? They go to Bricktown and the Myriad Gardens. The poor are just like the rest of us.

[Midtowner]

No need exists to denigrate Larry for posting his opinions.

He's stating his opinions as if they are fact. He's misrepresenting what the law is and I doubt he is equipped to really understand why. The State Supreme Court has taken the single subject rule only so far. His argument ratchets it a step further and he states with confidence that that ratchet further is in fact where we are today. Until and unless a court rules on the matter, the Maps III ballot is constitutional and that's not what he's saying.

I see fit to denigrate someone after they've had it demonstrated to them over and over and had the caselaw laid out for them in black and white when they take that information and ignore it. I'm not presenting an opinion, belief or attitude. I'm just telling y'all what the law is.

It's also true that the State Supreme Court could ratchet the rule further to say that we can't accomplish indirectly what we can't accomplish directly, but that's a heck of a Pandora's Box. Imagine... sales tax revenue dedicated to "capital improvements" is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule. How about the public safety tax? At what level of generality could the Court ever let us know when a tax would be constitutional? It'd lead to chaos. The dead rising from the graves, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I appreciate what you're doing here, trying to be the reasonable one, the arbiter who says that there are always two sides to the story. In this case, there aren't.

[Midtowner]

Yet no one has posted a constitutional provision or statute which prohibits a city council from logrolling. Like Doug, I have not found one. I do believe that Art.5 is directed at the Legislature and defines that term as not including a city council or vote of a city. I am just looking for the legal authority anyone who would challenge maps 3 as logrolling (which it wasn't) would rely on. If it is Art. 5, good luck to them.

This is the article:

Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes; and no law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length: Provided, That if any subject be embraced in any act contrary to the provisions of this section, such act shall be void only as to so much of the laws as may not be expressed in the title thereof.

I thought I would, but I have done a fairly exhaustive search on Westlaw and cannot find a single instance of the single subject laws being applied to municipalities. That being said, “A municipal corporation in this state has only such powers as conferred upon it by the Legislature. ‘* * * grants of such powers are strictly construed against the corporations * * *.”’ Cain's Coffee Co. v. City of Muskogee, 171 Okl. 635, 44 P.2d 50, 53. The legislature cannot confer powers it does not have. Thus, the single subject rule applies to municipalities.

[Midtowner]

There is more to being a mayor in Oklahoma City than supporting or not supporting MAPS. To make complete progress as a city we need to address our bus system, health disparities, crime, poverty, and diversity issues to name a few. I completely support the progress we have made only if it means everyone in the city will benefit. There are too many families living in poverty in this city who don't have time to think about a new park or convention center because they are worried about staying alive and keeping food on the table.

Oh goody.. for the umpteenth time, how does a mayor accomplish this with his tie-breaking vote on the horseshoe? How do you think the city government as opposed to the federal government should address families wanting jobs and keeping food on the table? Perhaps make sure that there are businesses here to give folks jobs? How do we lure businesses here? Quality of life issues. Things like the NBA are huge. Those are the things which build the momentum for us to have bus systems.

I'm not sure what your solution to "diversity issues" is?

[krisb]

I celebrate the progress we have made as a city, not denying it. I am just saying that there is still more to do. Unemployment numbers do not measure quality of life for the working poor. I would also argue that local communities have the best opportunity to address poverty by harnessing the social capital of neighborhoods, non-profits, religious communities, and small businesses. We have seen how effective the federal government is in addressing these disparities, even from a Democratic President. No doubt, the poor enjoy leisure time but not all have the same access to downtown amenities. Perhaps increasing evening and weekend bus service would help. As the urban core has become gentrified it has displaced less affluent families to the inner ring of older suburban neighborhoods.

[ljbab728]

I see nothing wrong with your ideas. I just see no reason to think that Ed can or would accomplish that any better than Mick.

[betts]

Increasing evening and weekend bus service would help. I've always been in favor of improving our bus service. i just think we need to improve attitudes towards mass transit before the voters will willingly tax themselves to improve bus service. i think we may also need to link it to rail to make that happen, which is why i am so gung-ho about an RTD. But Mayor Cornett and other mayors are already working towards that. It's nothing that will be jump-started by changing who's in office. Gentrification takes years and years. It's actually when neighborhoods are in flux that there is the most economic diversity. We've got some in flux and some that need to be. Very few of our closest in neighborhoods can be considered completely gentrified.

[zookeeper]

I celebrate the progress we have made as a city, not denying it. I am just saying that there is still more to do. Unemployment numbers do not measure quality of life for the working poor. I would also argue that local communities have the best opportunity to address poverty by harnessing the social capital of neighborhoods, non-profits, religious communities, and small businesses. We have seen how effective the federal government is in addressing these disparities, even from a Democratic President. No doubt, the poor enjoy leisure time but not all have the same access to downtown amenities. Perhaps increasing evening and weekend bus service would help. As the urban core has become gentrified it has displaced less affluent families to the inner ring of older suburban neighborhoods.

Like every other city. What can be done about it? There is definitely an underclass that has no interest in improving their lot. The hood is their playground. For those who do want out and into the middle class, I'm not sure local government has that much power to do much. Though I understand your frustration.