Ed Shadid Launches Formal Attack on MAPS 3 Conv Center in tandem with Mayoral Bid

[David]

Really? You do realize that there is a middle ground right?
I'm referring to people that have supported every MAPS project. People that want the downtown park, a modern transit system. But something about this convention center doesn't sit right.
I for one am not willing to let this one issue derail the whole thing but like I said a lot of I know are really starting to second guess the whole thing.

So, is there any actual proof that building and operating the convention center is going to line the pockets of the big movers and shakers in the city? Seems like there would be some profit for whichever construction company builds it, but a lot of the money that goes that direction would just be paying wages.

Someone help me out here, because I just don't see the monetary benefit for Larry Nichols, to pick a not-completely-random example.

[trousers]

You're asking if I have proof of what some people that I know perceive?

No.

[David]

You're asking if I have proof of what some people that I know perceive?

No.

Well, next time you talk to the people you know, ask them.

[trousers]

I really doubt that they have any documentation.

But they don't need any to vote, only their perceptions.

[shawnw]

Let's say he is successful in getting the CC yanked (and/or part or all of MAPS3). How do we then have confidence, as voters, to ever vote for anything like that again, without fearing it might get repealed by a future vote/law suit?

[SoonerDave]

So, is there any actual proof that building and operating the convention center is going to line the pockets of the big movers and shakers in the city? Seems like there would be some profit for whichever construction company builds it, but a lot of the money that goes that direction would just be paying wages.

Someone help me out here, because I just don't see the monetary benefit for Larry Nichols, to pick a not-completely-random example.

I'm not naive enough to believe every aspect of every MAPS project is purely altruistic, and the CC is certainly no exception - and there's really little doubt that the public polling done prior to MAPS3 showed that a proposal for only a CC would not have passed. And I also remember all too keenly a friend of mine, who was driving me through downtown one day (WAAAAAAY before any of this became MAPS3, mind you), pointed to some land and told me "that's where the new convention center is going to be, " and that some folks had been advised to buy some what was otherwise unattractive property in that area....and guess what....that's exactly where its going to be built. So its hard not to scratch your chin and go, "hmmm...." at that.

That said, if we're going to build a CC, we need to do it right, so we've got to figure out the right way to get it done.

[Pete]

I don't think the CC should be yanked but there is a conversation that should be had about this process, because it's made more that a few people uncomfortable.

And if want future MAPS projects to pass, I think the issues need to be addressed.

[SoonerDave]

I've never been happy with the way this whole convention center thing has transpired; to not being open about the study prior to the vote, to it being moved up in the timeline, to using a selection process that promised the best site for the CC and not what was best for OKC overall. And there are still a bunch of unanswered questions about what could be a very expensive hotel that will likely need substantial public support.

It's really too bad that Shadid has alienated himself to the point that he can't effectively address these issues -- because they do need addressing.

He could have also carried the torch for addressing the issues with the planning department, the Project 180 planning and budget and several other key areas that need to be put under a bright light.

Unfortunately, he's turned into a bit of a pariah and even when he is right and/or people may agree with his message, there is little trust.

Great, great point, Pete - and that's the incredibly frustrating thing about all this as it relates to Shadid's campaign/candidacy. Why on earth he (Shadid) had to adopt the scorched earth policy escapes me. A constructive discussion about MAPS3 transparency would have been useful in lots of ways - but now any such notion is inherently tied to Shadid in such a way that it would be nearly impossible for it to gain any traction. Further demonstration of how corrosive a candidacy like his can be in ways one doesn't even realize.

[Pete]

I'm not naive enough to believe every aspect of every MAPS project is purely altruistic, and the CC is certainly no exception - and there's really little doubt that the public polling done prior to MAPS3 showed that a proposal for only a CC would not have passed. And I also remember all too keenly a friend of mine, who was driving me through downtown one day (WAAAAAAY before any of this became MAPS3, mind you), pointed to some land and told me "that's where the new convention center is going to be, " and that some folks had been advised to buy some what was otherwise unattractive property in that area....and guess what....that's exactly where its going to be built. So its hard not to scratch your chin and go, "hmmm...." at that.

That said, if we're going to build a CC, we need to do it right, so we've got to figure out the right way to get it done.

One of the things that has added to the feeling of heavy-handedness in dealing with this project is the overwhelming influence of Larry Nichols.

This is his baby and everyone knows that. He's been heard saying it's his biggest priority.

Considering the MAPS committees were supposed to be citizen-driven, his huge and disproportionate influence doesn't seem right, regardless of the pureness of his intentions.

[OKCisOK4me]

The convention center is more important, in my opinion, than the streetcar. As I said in the other thread, the Cox Center, today, is an appropriate convention center/arena for a city the size of Little Rock or Wichita. Does anybody seriously think the Cox Center will suffice for OKC in 20 years if population growth remains steady? What if the Peake had never been built and the Cox Arena was all that OKC had? It's incredibly shortsighted to attempt to derail this convention center. OKC will never get big name conventions - the kind of thing bring major dollars into the city and huge exposure to businesses and tourists - without this new convention center.

Where in my statement did you see me say that the convention center wasn't important? Hold yer horses there ol' bchris, lol.

[shawnw]

For arguments sake lets say this is Larry's biggest priority because he has one or more major energy conventions he wants hosted here (not an unreasonable desire for a former energy CEO). Considering the economic impact of such conventions would that be the most terrible thing to come out of all of this?

[warreng88]

Let's say he is successful in getting the CC yanked (and/or part or all of MAPS3). How do we then have confidence, as voters, to ever vote for anything like that again, without fearing it might get repealed by a future vote/law suit?

We don't and that's the point. If this goes through, it will be the end of MAPS as we know it. That is why it is so important that it all stays on there and passes again or whatever it takes.

[KenRagsdale]

This petition drive is unwise, imprudent and will be defeated. Regardless of what one may think of the process, City of Oklahoma City voters have previously decided this issue. That decision should be respected.

[OSUFan]

Is there not a way to debate the issues on the convention center (and all the projects) without simply burning it all to the ground? Am I missing something?

[shawnw]

So... public meeting on the convention center? I'm for that. But have you gone to the public meetings? Goodness... some real gems come out of the woodwork. My favorite was someone suggesting a ski-lift style mechanism to move people around downtown, in particular the 70-acre park (instead of the streetcar) because it's so big... I'm just saying I'm not sure it would be as constructive as you think. Unless we have a "convention" on the convention center. Or something.

[RadicalModerate]

I hope he gets absolutely obliterated in the Mayoral election. I would like to see more dirt on him and his life completely ruined to where he never steps foot in OKC ever again. I hope his practice goes under and has to move back to Chicago or SF.

I'm simply a bit amazed that a Public Works Project for The Betterment of The Community at Large can generate this level of vitriol and emotion. Especially a Convention Center primarily for "out of towners". =)

It's almost--i hear tell--sorta like Will Rogers' on-site commentary on the unveiling of some statue involving Prairie Women and Wagons and Whatnots up there in the vicinity of The Marland Mansion outside of Ponca City . . . back in the day.

The main thing to remember here ("the takeaway" as "they" say) is: The Developers ALWAYS Win. Always.
I guess, then, that it comes down to a question of: "What IS 'Development'?"
It, "Development", for sure ain't stagnation.

Let the chips fall where they may . . . THEN spin the wheel or roll the dice.

[Pete]

For arguments sake lets say this is Larry's biggest priority because he has one or more major energy conventions he wants hosted here (not an unreasonable desire for a former energy CEO). Considering the economic impact of such conventions would that be the most terrible thing to come out of all of this?

Then, as nothing more than a committee member and a citizen, he should come forward with that information as it would be critical in terms of timing, funding, projections, etc.

Otherwise, he is just one voice and should be treated as such.


History is littered with the hubris of men who have been very successful in one area and thus simply believe they know what is best for everyone else, and then end up failing in spectacular fashion and in ways that truly injure a community. There are dozens of examples in OKC alone.

MAPS and the committees are meant to be public processes and should be treated as such.

[betts]

I really doubt that they have any documentation.

But they don't need any to vote, only their perceptions.

Those are the low information voters somoneone mentioned here. Reminds me of my 80 year old mother: I voted for ______. He seems like such a nice man. Of course my favorite was when she voted against fluoridation of the water because she was sure it was a communist plot to rot the brains of Americans and enable Russia to take over our government. Some of the things I've heard recently don't sound that different.

[SoonerDave]

Is there not a way to debate the issues on the convention center (and all the projects) without simply burning it all to the ground? Am I missing something?

Well, the problem right now is that the consultants aiding in the planning process for the new Convention Center are, in effect, telling us you all-but have to do a convention hotel in tandem with the convention center, or the general intent of the center is never really realized. But there was never any mention of a hotel in the MAPS3 project list, so its politically unpalatable to suggest that some of MAPS3 funding be diverted to a project that was never on the original list (convention hotel) while other projects that were get pushed down the priority list (for varying reasons). And that doesn't even begin to address the cost of the hotel and the magnitude of the public funds that might (will?) be necessary to make it happen.

Couple this with the fact that Shadid is trying to turn this into a scorched earth plan to derail MAPS completely - throwing out the baby with the bathwater as it were - and it makes for a particularly ugly political football. Some would suggest that proposing a CC only was disingenuous at the outset - and Shadid is trying to take this tack as a nuclear option by suggesting there was a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of city leaders regarding the necessity of a hotel in concert with the CC.

I personally think the Shadid approach is a non-starter, because we all know (or should by now) that city voters did not literally approve so much as one single nail for one single project - they authorized a "capital improvements" tax with what amount to "representative" list of projects in the form of a Resolution of Intent. But changing that ROI to include a hotel that notionally no one voted for is a political hand grenade minus its pin.

I'll go back to a suggestion I made some months ago - that Cornett and/or other city leaders need to engage our state Legislature to get the logrolling provision in the state constitution modified to allow the specification of projects as was done in the first MAPS ballot so many years ago. I have to believe there's a way to keep the spirit of the logrolling provision in tact without it creating a hamstring for a city trying to plan and fund legitimate civic improvement projects.

[warreng88]

This petition drive is unwise, imprudent and will be defeated. Regardless of what one may think of the process, City of Oklahoma City voters have previously decided this issue. That decision should be respected.

There are a lot of uninformed people out there that think that the MAPS projects are only for DT and are just a playground for the rich. I've even heard one ES supporter say that "MAPS is Socialism in its purest form."

The other problem is it only passed by a 54% vote which means 46% or about 34,000 people were against it and I am sure there are people who have flipped to that side since that time. How many of those people will they be able to get to sign a petition to call for a special vote? Ed Shadid has almost 2,400 likes on his facebook page and has an avid following for how crazy he is.

[RadicalModerate]

Is there not a way to debate the issues on the convention center (and all the projects) without simply burning it all to the ground? Am I missing something?

No. And Yes.
(and/or vice-versa =)

I think your use of the word "it" in conjunction with "all" in the middle of your question obsfucated the issue(s).
Yet, I've been wrong before.

[trousers]

Those are the low information voters somoneone mentioned here. Reminds me of my 80 year old mother: I voted for ______. He seems like such a nice man. Of course my favorite was when she voted against fluoridation of the water because she was sure it was a communist plot to rot the brains of Americans and enable Russia to take over our government. Some of the things I've heard recently don't sound that different.

Wow. Your level of arrogance is pretty amazing.
Theses people are low info voters comparable to the anti-fluoride crowd just because they don't think this convention center is a good idea?
I'm not seeing consensus on the issue even in this thread. There seem to be several other pro-MAPS posters that think there some serious unresolved questions about it. I guess they all sport foil hats too lol.

[betts]

The main thing to remember here ("the takeaway" as "they" say) is: The Developers ALWAYS Win. Always.

Actually they don't. Sometimes they lose spectacularly and sometimes they're happy to break even. Business ventures are always a gamble. If you've got the money and want to gamble, our society allows you to do so. If you win, some people complain, but if you lose, those same people don't offer to take up a collection. All I ask is that the winners pay their fair share of taxes. Otherwise, I don't begrudge them their winnings, given that they sometimes risk all.

I don't even feel like I really have enough information to give anything but an opinion about whether we actually need a new convention center. Our exisiting one is ugly. As I've said, I hate the location. I don't like the idea of a convention center dividing the two parks. But as I've also said, I know there were voters that wanted a new convention center and I feel like we have to honor their say in the electoral process.

[betts]

Wow. Your level of arrogance is pretty amazing.
Theses people are low info voters comparable to the anti-fluoride crowd just because they don't think this convention center is a good idea?
I'm not seeing consensus on the issue even in this thread. There seem to be several other pro-MAPS posters that think there some serious unresolved questions about it. I guess they all sport foil hats too lol.

You're the one that said they're voting based on their perceptions. I was responding to that statement. That's how my mother votes. Perhaps it's better to vote based on information if you can get it. See below:

[betts]

Really? You do realize that there is a middle ground right?
I'm referring to people that have supported every MAPS project. People that want the downtown park, a modern transit system. But something about this convention center doesn't sit right.
I for one am not willing to let this one issue derail the whole thing but like I said a lot of I know are really starting to second guess the whole thing.

I think that the real data is difficult to come by. The "experts" have an agenda as well. The most outstanding evidence supporting my last statement occurred during the City of Seattle's lawsuit against Clay Bennett, et al. The foremost sports arena expert, who had countless articles talking about why cities shouldn't build them as they're a massive boondoggle and only help team owners, testified for the City saying that the Sonics were a huge economic boon to Seattle, completely reversing everything he'd written previously. I'd read all his previous articles and so, (to stop any arena complaining dead in its tracks here) in previous articles he'd written that the only exception to to his argument that arenas are bad investments for cities, was in cities with a single team and 200 miles or more from any other cities with professional sports teams - whew!

So, I think the best argument for a new convention center is that the old one is ugly and out of date and a new one will improve perceptions of our city. The people who do come here for a convention will think better of us, we might get some bigger conventions and we can use it for local events. It's a fairly weak argument, but it's weakness is certainly not enough to make me want to stop MAPS dead in its tracks and risk never passing another community improvement tax. I agree.